Thought Crimes Bill Expected to Pass House

April 29th, 2009 By: marc moore | Tags:

image

HR 1913, the latest far-left attempt to pass special provisions for hate crimes, is expected to pass through the House of Representatives this week, perhaps even tomorrow.

Hate crimes are abominations most often carried out by dullards and xenophobes.  You know, the kind of people your parents warned you about as a youngster.  Nevertheless, all hate crimes legislation is bad legislation.

Why?  One important reason is because these laws discriminate based on the un-provable, specifically the perpetrator’s state of mind.  In many cases it’s not possible to know the killer’s true motive beyond a reasonable doubt.  Is this to be left to jurors?  If so, it’s a recipe for disaster if consistency of the law’s application is of any concern.

Another reason hate crimes bills should be universally rejected is that they deliberately create different sentencing scenarios for criminals for committing the same act.  Is there a significant difference between a random murder and one based on race?  No, the victim is dead in both cases and the killer, if caught, is very, very likely to go down for life, if not to the gas chamber.

Hate crimes bills remind me of that Yankee-goes-south classic My Cousin Vinnie in which the lovely Marisa Tomei has this to say to Joe Pesci, who’s about to go hunting:

Vinny Gambini: What about these pants I got on? You think they’re okay?

Mona Lisa Vito: Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water – BAM. A fuckin’ bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a fuck what kind of pants the son-of-a-bitch who shot you was wearing?

Murder is murder.  Crime is crime.  The punishment fits the crime, or it ought to.  Easy concepts but evidently too difficult for liberal lawmakers to master.

The crime isn’t hating black people or white people or purple people eaters, it’s assault, rape, or murder.  Period.

Equal protection under the law?  No such thing if you’re a patron of the Democratic party – you’re more than equal, a privilege granted quid pro quo for voting Democratic, with little regard for the social, legal, and constitutional principles on which this nation was founded. 

Thus was born the Welfare State, Affirmative Action, forced desegregation, abortion on demand, and now, apparently, state-sanctioned legal discrimination for thought crime – all for the benefit of the voters of one political party.

Some country that the Baby Boomers are leaving my kids.  ‘Preciate ya lots.

If you’re not too busy being gainfully employed tomorrow, call the House switchboard at 866-346-4611 and let them know what a mess they’re about to make.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Debra Dwson
    April 29th, 2009 at 17:50
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I say do not let this pass big misstate.We the people have a voice and right and like to us them if you let us.So i say a big NO and i am a voter not that you let us vote on judges are were are money go but any ways.NO NO!!!!!!!!!

  2. Jane Schmo
    April 29th, 2009 at 20:20
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I would tell you what I think of this law, but it might get me prison time. Hopefully, I will not be arrested anyways, and sent to jail because a bunch of jurors think I was thinking something bad about someone. “Beam me up Scotty…..”.

  3. carrie
    May 1st, 2009 at 23:51
    Reply | Quote | #3

    im only 12 yrs old i live in guernsey,,, how many people died cause of the swine flu

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.