Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[Nik]

Lets see. So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah. Like I said, you know jack shit.

Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them. Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.

I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics. Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.

 

[del]

Lets see. So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah. Like I said, you know jack shit.

Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them. Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.

I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics. Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.

such as?

 

[catzmeow]

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.

You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.

 

[catzmeow]

such as?

It makes him feel warm and fluffy on the inside, like the Pillsbury Fucking Doughboy.

 

[Nik]

(which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).

19 years working in the field of gangs, and I live in Florida. I'd say that's an equivalent level of detail.

Also, I graduated from William Jewell College.

Feel safer now?

I've said what year I am. That narrows it down to about 100-450 individuals if I told you which school I went too. I'll pass on giving you that information.

 

[Nik]

Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them. Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.

I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics. Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.

such as?

Symbolic value.

 

[Nik]

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.

You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.

Thats nice. Whether the legislation is the same or not isn't relevant. What other factors exist in the case are whats relevant.

 

[del]

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.

such as?

Symbolic value.

you're kidding right?

 

[jgbkab]

Actually you were talking about one case. California laws=one case.

California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.

You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.

So if enforcing the existing laws doesn't work and additional hate crime laws don't work, what do you think is the solution?

 

[Yurt]

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...

Oh noes. Yurt doesn't believe me. My life is all in shambles now ;(

Don't blame Yurt, you were a moron before he ever encountered you.

 

[Nik]

such as?

Symbolic value.

you're kidding right?

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

 

[Nik]

Oy. I accept that you guys are all having fun attempting to beat up on the one guy, since you can't handle it yourselves. But really, do try to avoid patting each other on the back at every turn. Yes, you are all in a cute little circle jerk where you are all thinking in lock step in with each other. Your even making the same flaws, which is really quite endearing. But try to at least pretend you have a point and aren't just having fun attacking someone as a group.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course... I can't imagine numbers that high!. And I am sure a fresh new face to the law. Its not like I've been around this kind of shit since I was 10, both parents being involved in the law and all.

But do tell how if its "not about me", you were able to glean so much from something I personally said?

Aside from that, I don't have any pretensions about the law. Legal Aid does a lot of good work, but the law is fucked up in any number of ways, and the adversarial system is somewhat of a strange one. And no, I'm not a "by-product" of the system. Its influenced me, surely, but I am not a creation of it.

Then you should stop sounding like one.

Perhaps you should stop assuming I do based off of a few statements.



oh, and what "company line" would that be? And no, not all the good minds go to harvard and yale. But there is definitely a difference in intelligence.

Sounds like someone went to a bad law school and had a shitty career that they hated as a result. Don't be bitter, baby.

Yes, there is a reason biglaw does what it does, but it doesn't have much to do with what you think it does.

Oh, then do enlighten me.

Why do the government agencies higher disproportionately from George Washington and American?

I wasn't aware that they do. In at least one area, they don't. I couldn't be assed to look up more government agencies.

USDOJ: OARM: Law Schools Attended By 2007-2008 Honors Program Hires

But IF that is the case, and you'd have to prove to me that it was, it would be because of location.
Any ideas?

Edit:

They don't actually have #'s on the site, actually, so its unclear.[/QUOTE]

LOL.....you are verging on a complete wreck. Some would argue and say you aren't verging.

At any rate, since you asked, I went to a reasonably top law school. In the top 25 or so anyway. So, strike one. I hated practicing law and there was no where within the "actual practice of law" that I felt like I would enjoy, so I left it to do something constructive with my life.

Oh, I was full of piss and vinegar at first. Teaching those nasty landlords a lesson. Defending those poor unfortunates. Even though practicing that kind of law was distinctly not why I went to law school. After a few years of it, well....time will tell. You decide. Some people actually like it. I've seen them. Most of those are asshole pricks. (which I was becoming. Unknown to me at the time but I had a divorce in my future if I'd stayed on that road.)

Unlike you, I know what they hire there, because I've been there. They hire in those numbers not merely because of location but because of the network. If location was all it was, there would also be large numbers from Georgetown, Catholic and Howard not to mention George Mason. All respected law schools and all within 10 miles of DC. But, that isn't what happens.

 

[del]

Symbolic value.

you're kidding right?

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.

 

[Tech_Esq]

you're kidding right?

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.

In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.

So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.

 

[del]

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.

In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.

So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.

oh, i don't. the idea that a law should be passed for its symbolic value alone is pretty rich with irony though.

 

[Ravi]

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.

In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.

So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.

Where is anyone taught that?

 

[Tech_Esq]

damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.

In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.

So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.

Where is anyone taught that?

Only in law school.

You would blanch at my list of law school professors and their pet topics. Here's a glimpse:

First year:

Professor Williams - Property Law - First 6 weeks of class concerning the fact that women are not chattel property.

Professor Hagger - Torts - People don't have any more right to what they earn than any other person in society. Self avowed socialist (no he didn't say to which hyphen of socialism he belonged, Agna).

Professor Raskin - Criminal Law - Also Chief Counsel of the Rainbow Push Coalition and current state senator in Maryland. Brought Jesse Jackson to our class to tell us about voting rights for DC.

And finally, a guest professor for Legislation class, the Chief Counsel for the ACLU.

Hmmmpff......and me a righty. No wonder I did law school in 2 1/2 years. Had to get out of that nut house.

 

[catzmeow]

So if enforcing the existing laws doesn't work and additional hate crime laws don't work, what do you think is the solution?

Actually, I think that enforcing existing laws DOES in fact work. So does aggressive intel collection on known hate groups who are involved in criminal activities, such as the Nazi Lowriders, and others. Because, shockingly enough, hate crime groups are OFTEN involved in a host of other activities, from publishing recruitment materials to trafficking in illegal weapons and drugs.

Shut down one member with a hate crime, and it's like the hydra. Another head rises up, and they have a martyr for the cause. Shut down the ENTIRE GROUP through proactive investigation, and you stop ALL of their criminal activities.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't support federal hate crimes legislation that I'm soft on racists and criminals. I'm not.

 

[catzmeow]

No. Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people. Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.

If a person is targeted by a criminal or violent act for their sexual orientation, there are already LAWS ON THE BOOKS for prosecuting that criminal act. Aggressive, effective prosecution SENDS THAT SAME MESSAGE, without the special hate crimes label.

And, if the acts aren't criminal, then the law doesn't apply anyway. Passing this law is not going to:

1) Increase tolerance of gays/lesbians.
2) Stop people from staring at you when you walk down the sidewalk hand in hand with your boyfriend.
3) Push your company to give you partner benefits.

You have this fuzzy-headed notion that passing a federal hate crimes law will suddenly make life a cakewalk for gays/lesbians. And the fact of the matter is that it won't.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE, except that you'll have federal prosecutors grandstanding and politicizing cases, instead of local ones. The jury pools won't change. I've seen nothing to convince me that USAOs are somehow more effective or professional or credible than local prosecutors, plus, most of them are from the local area ANYWAY, and attended the same law schools as the local prosecutors.

These cases will STILL RELY on the same types of people, in virtually the same settings, to prosecute these crimes. And they will fall short in EXACTLY the same ways that they currently do.

Jeez, you are naive.