If they'd passed a federal law to make crime x,y, or z, illegal, I'd be in favor of it. But, I have a problem with the federal government determining that if criminal A commits crime x, because he didn't like something about the victim, it's a federal crime; but if criminal B does the same exact thing because he wanted the victim's money, it's not a federal crime.
For the record, I'm opposed to "domestic violence" charges too. For me, the motivation is irrelavent. If something is a crime, it's a crime. And, if you hate the victim, or live with the victim, it shouldn't be less or more serious. You murder someone, with malice in your heart, or with just plain greed in your heart, and in my opinion, you should serve the same sentence. If you rape a stranger's child, or you rape your own child, you should serve the same sentence.
Honestly, I think these kind of laws diminish the victim. Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered. To me, the reason is not relavent. I don't care if he was an S.O.B. who was the scum of the earth. Those people did not have a right to do what they did to him. But, if they were just assholes, who had targeted someone who was ugly or fat or reminded them of their mamma, that person's death should be treated exactly the same.
I know, call me Pollyanna, because there is no color-gender-sexuality-class, anything else blindness in our society, when it comes to victims and criminals.
But, I have a problem with the federal government determining that if criminal A commits crime x, because he didn't like something about the victim, it's a federal crime; but if criminal B does the same exact thing because he wanted the victim's money, it's not a federal crime.
I understand that. But, seriously, historically in some jurisdictions, crimes against minorities were *not* thoroughly investigated by the local police. This was a way for the federal government to make sure that *all* crimes, whether motivated by money or hatred, were investigated. A crime being a "federal" crime doesn't mean it's worse than a "state" crime. It just means that the "federal police" (usually the FBI, but not always) investigates it rather than the "state police" (or "local police").
And isn't it better to have the "federal police" investigating a crime than for the Podunk County sheriff decide "It were just a black fella that got beat up. Probably looked wrong at a white woman. Bastard deserved it." Or "Damn queer shoulda got killed rather than just beat up." Or "Ol' Smith beats his wife Saturday nights regular. No sense wasting a deputy's time on it."
And yes, those things *do* happen. That's why they passed these federal laws.
The federal government want to make *all* assault cases federal cases, but they want to have a net in which to catch the ones that are falling through the cracks of the local and state police.
I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be necessary. But I also do understand that it is. And since it *is* necessary, I'm glad that sexuality, gender identity and other categories have gotten added to the protected groups.
For the record, I'm opposed to "domestic violence" charges too. For me, the motivation is irrelavent. If something is a crime, it's a crime. And, if you hate the victim, or live with the victim, it shouldn't be less or more serious. You murder someone, with malice in your heart, or with just plain greed in your heart, and in my opinion, you should serve the same sentence. If you rape a stranger's child, or you rape your own child, you should serve the same sentence.
Honestly, I think these kind of laws diminish the victim. Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered. To me, the reason is not relavent. I don't care if he was an S.O.B. who was the scum of the earth. Those people did not have a right to do what they did to him. But, if they were just assholes, who had targeted someone who was ugly or fat or reminded them of their mamma, that person's death should be treated exactly the same.
I know, call me Pollyanna, because there is no color-gender-sexuality-class, anything else blindness in our society, when it comes to victims and criminals.
But, there should be.
Kim
Kim
Reply
I understand that. But, seriously, historically in some jurisdictions, crimes against minorities were *not* thoroughly investigated by the local police. This was a way for the federal government to make sure that *all* crimes, whether motivated by money or hatred, were investigated. A crime being a "federal" crime doesn't mean it's worse than a "state" crime. It just means that the "federal police" (usually the FBI, but not always) investigates it rather than the "state police" (or "local police").
And isn't it better to have the "federal police" investigating a crime than for the Podunk County sheriff decide "It were just a black fella that got beat up. Probably looked wrong at a white woman. Bastard deserved it." Or "Damn queer shoulda got killed rather than just beat up." Or "Ol' Smith beats his wife Saturday nights regular. No sense wasting a deputy's time on it."
And yes, those things *do* happen. That's why they passed these federal laws.
The federal government want to make *all* assault cases federal cases, but they want to have a net in which to catch the ones that are falling through the cracks of the local and state police.
I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be necessary. But I also do understand that it is. And since it *is* necessary, I'm glad that sexuality, gender identity and other categories have gotten added to the protected groups.
Reply
Leave a comment