# AG Eric Holder



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

*Of all the dangers and issues we are facing as a nation, let's make sure another "hate crimes" bill passes. Unbelievable! Priorities???? -Sgt Andy Sipowicz-*

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder urged Congress Thursday to pass a *new **hate crimes** law which would allow the federal government to prosecute cases of violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability.* 
Holder, who testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, cited the recent killing of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The alleged assailant is a white supremacist.

"One has to look at the unfortunate history of our nation. There are groups that have been singled out, that have been targets of violence," the attorney general said. "We have to face and confront that reality." 
Lawmakers at the hearing debated the possible impact of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill-named after a gay man killed in Wyoming in 1998-would allow federal prosecution of violence committed because of the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity of the victim. 
For more than a decade, Democrats have sought to update the hate crimes law, which already makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their race, creed or color. 
Republicans at the hearing questioned whether the change would expand federal power unnecessarily into cases already being prosecuted by state and local officials. They also questioned why certain victims of violence should be singled out for particular types of protection. 
"That's part of the problem. Some are protected groups and get special protection under this law," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "You argued your case. I've listened to it and I'm not persuaded." 
According to FBI data, the number of hate crimes per year is relatively unchanged in the past 10 years. In 1998, the FBI reported 7,755 hate crime incidents, and in 2007 the bureau reported 7,624. 
About half of all hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. The other two most frequent hate crimes are those motivated by religion or sexual orientation. 
Holder said the statistics show hate crimes against Hispanics have increased four years in a row. 
Sessions and a Democratic lawmaker, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, both voiced concerns that the bill could be used to prosecute a church leader who speaks out against homosexuality, if a member of their congregation then assaults a gay person. 
"This is a bill to hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech," Holder insisted. 
Democrats on the panel were overwhelmingly supportive of the legislation. 
"Hate crimes are really the worst. They are scarring forever on the individual," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., citing her own state's sometimes heated debate over immigration. Some of that debate, she said, "has been part of hate, and people have been beaten up because they happen to be Hispanic, they happen to be on a street corner where somebody doesn't want them." 
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## Kem25 (Aug 7, 2007)

Is it me or would this hate crime bill make a crime even more difficult to prove and allow some offenders off the hook. This bill would require the Govt. prove the crime was a hate crime which means prove the suspect intended to hurt this person because of his personal dislike towards that race,sex or whatever....Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion you prosecute the suspect to the fullest with the laws already in effect (skin head charged with ABDW on a Jewish victim gets the full penalty). Its easier to prove that an A&B happened without getting into the suspects reasons for committing such crime....Plus if I am not mistaken Holder has been trying to pass hate crimes laws forever now and each time he has tried someone in the state courts the person has gotten off.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2009)

Is it a hate crime yet to hate the liberals running this country?

He is an article on a similar subject: Gender Identity

Legalizing Deception: Why "Gender Identity" Should Not be Added to Anti-discrimination Legislation
Posted By Dale O'Leary On June 25, 2009 @ 12:03 am In Today | 1 Comment
Certain national and international groups are pushing for the addition of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to anti-discrimination laws. According to activists, gender identity is defined as: "An individual's self-perception or inner sense of being a man, a male, a woman, a female, both, neither, butch, femme, two-spirit, bigender, or another configuration of gender. Gender identity often matches the gender typically associated with the person's anatomy but sometimes does not" and gender expression refers to: "Any combination of how someone outwardly presents external characteristics behaviors that are socially defined as masculine or feminine, including dress, mannerisms speech patterns and social interactions."[1]..........
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/06/25/119728/


----------



## MetrowestPD (Oct 21, 2008)

Kem25 said:


> Is it me or would this hate crime bill make a crime even more difficult to prove and allow some offenders off the hook. This bill would require the Govt. prove the crime was a hate crime which means prove the suspect intended to hurt this person because of his personal dislike towards that race,sex or whatever....Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion you prosecute the suspect to the fullest with the laws already in effect (skin head charged with ABDW on a Jewish victim gets the full penalty). Its easier to prove that an A&B happened without getting into the suspects reasons for committing such crime....Plus if I am not mistaken Holder has been trying to pass hate crimes laws forever now and each time he has tried someone in the state courts the person has gotten off.


That's not how the hate crimes work. You first prove the underlying offense then if you can show that it was motivated by race, creed, gender etc... it adds a stiffer penalty. i.e. A&B would be a misdemeanor, however A&B as a hate crime is a felony with a minimum mandatory.


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

MetrowestPD said:


> That's not how the hate crimes work. You first prove the underlying offense then if you can show that it was motivated by race, creed, gender etc... it adds a stiffer penalty. i.e. A&B would be a misdemeanor, however A&B as a hate crime is a felony with a minimum mandatory.


Yep. It's all about "_sentence enhancement_".


----------



## BB-59 (Oct 19, 2005)

It is kinda like a catch all type of law, not clearly stated and a million words to trip over.

Must have originated in Massachusetts.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

With all due respect, I think a law should be a law and the same penalty should apply to everyone. We have a black President, black Governor, gay Congressmen etc etc. Are we not past points in our history where certain groups were discriminated against? If someone beats the hell out of me while calling me a straight, white male will my attacker get an enhanced penalty???


----------

