Veto threat for federal hate crimes protection for gays

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: loki8481
I guess it's hard to explain if you've never had the **** kicked out of you simply for existing.
So do you think this only happens to minorities, or do you think that only minorities deserve good protection under the law?
You're missing the point. Actually, you're probably not - you're being willfully obtuse.

But let's make this explicit: Many minority groups have the **** kicked out of them BECAUSE they are a particular minority, a disadvantage that non-minorities typically don't face.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
The whole concept of a hate crime is stupid.

That statement shows a lack of historical perspective.

It was brought about because the local governments in the South were not prosecuting whites who bombed, lynched, and terrorized African Americans. It has been shown that some members of the local governments were involved in the terrorism.

The law allowed the federal government to get involved.

The law is moot when someone like GWB is in the White House

Should the law be overturned? IMO, not as long the majority is casual with enforcing the laws fairly.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Hate crimes protect Jews since they are the most targeted minority in the U.S for hate crimes.
& Jews = more powerful than j00 in the U.S.

Therefore hate laws 0wnz j00.
[Ok too much Redbull and lack of sleep]

Of course I doubt it was created as a result of that. More likely stemmed from black people and homosexuals being targeted and making the news. The one that pops out the most is the dragging of that guy because he was black? homosexual? one of those.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The law is moot when someone like GWB is in the White House

highlighted to make a point, any value in your post just went right out the door, unfounded accusations only go to show too many of you suffer BDS.

I guess its why I love AT P&N... its like taking candy from a baby here.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Why are gays any different from say christians?

xians are 'protected' under USA federal hate crimes laws. (Hate crimes based on religion). sexual orientation isn't 'protected' under the same laws.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Every Group in America has undergone and is undergoing some kind of discriminations or hatred. Italians were hated and discriminated against. Irish had the same problem, Germans had the same problem, Swedish and norwegian had the same problems. Chinese were much hated and discriminated against and treated as slaves by the railroad. Mormons were very much hated and discriminated against, chased off their land and Gov Boggs signed an extermination order against Mormons.

Slavery was a scourge in this cuntry, and it caused the shedding of much blood by the North and the South.

However, now it is a time for everyone to stand up and be stalwart Men and Women. You have no excuse for anything you do in this country at this time. The pity party is over and it is time to take responsibility for your actions.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
The whole concept of a hate crime is stupid.

thought police... no worse the FEELINGS police...

truely unAmerican

Neither you or Aajax read much do you? I mean I did almost all of the heavy lifting for you... but apparently you can't even be bothered to read what I write. Why do I bother? If "HURF BLURF HAT3 CRIMZ r STOOPD" is your best argument, YOU are stupid.

haha cause you cannot help yourself...

So basically what you are saying is that prosecutors like Nifong get to make judgements about how a criminal is FEELING and what motivated them and stick someone with a longer sentence?

How do they know what some perp is feeling? What make some groups ok and others not? Too many loopholes and too much discretion to work well in my opinion. Mandatory minimims are another bad idea.

now retract your stoopid statement stoopid! ;) why bother...

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Bills like H.R. 1592 gives special rights to homosexuals which is why every homo group lobbied for them and they are celebrating today (including the homosexual group known as the ACLU ). It also extends special privileges to "transgender" people who are listed as a disorder in the DSM. Homosexuals and transgenders and pansexuals and all the others sexually disoriented people don't deserve special protections at all. They know they have an uphill struggle nationally so they want to force their fetid agenda on more local levels. In my county they want to allow the unelected Civil Rights Commisson to be able to levy 50,000 fines with out so much as a trial or public hearing. A small group seeking to force its disorder on people is going to backfire at some point and the buggers will cause the problems they say they want to fix.

In your country? Wow, you sure sound like an biggoted American neocon to me. Nice to know they are not exclusive to the US. :cookie:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: loki8481
I guess it's hard to explain if you've never had the **** kicked out of you simply for existing.
So do you think this only happens to minorities, or do you think that only minorities deserve good protection under the law?

unless my understanding is somehow fundamentally flawed, if you were singled out for a crime because of your sexual orientation, straight or gay, it could be potentially treated as a hate crime. it's just adding the tag "sexual orientation" to an existing law, not singling out homosexuals.

it just so happens that gay people experience it a lot more than straight people.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: EXman
haha cause you cannot help yourself...

So basically what you are saying is that prosecutors like Nifong get to make judgements about how a criminal is FEELING and what motivated them and stick someone with a longer sentence?

How do they know what some perp is feeling? What make some groups ok and others not? Too many loopholes and too much discretion to work well in my opinion. Mandatory minimims are another bad idea.

now retract your stoopid statement stoopid! ;) why bother...

Ugh, this is what I mean. This law's provisions are based on why the offender committed the crime. Did they commit it to target a certain group, or for some other reason? This is known legally as "intent". "Intent" is relevant to a thousand other laws and is constantly used... CONSTANTLY used as a measure for both severity of a crime and punishment. The example that has been used probably about 10 times in this thread is that killing someone without intent is manslaughter, killing with intent but not premeditation is 3rd degree, and with both is 1st degree. How the killer was FEELING is all that matters between a year or 2 in jail and the death penalty. Do you think we should get rid of degrees of murder?

Please do everyone a favor and learn about how the law works before making statements like these.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
I understand your point. But look at it from another perspective:

If the only evidence showing/provig "intent" was your speech, at the end of the day aren't you being penalized ofr that speech?

Only those who excercised their freedom of speech to say negative things about another race, gender etc can be successfully prosecuted under these so-called hate crime statutes adding years to an otherwise already criminal sentance. I.e., you've just been penalized for your "speech".

If race carries a presumption of "hate", i.e., a black guy attacks a white and thus race & "hate" are invoked, aren't we penalizing the black guy for his race?

Fern

While this is true, by that logic people are penalized on a daily basis for their speech. Words said during the commission of a crime, threats beforehand, etc. are constantly used as indicators of intent. Do you wish to remove speech as evidence admissable in criminal trials?

The threats themselves are a crime. So, it's not protected free speech.

If you are wire-tapped and caught planning something illegal, you'll get charged with conspiracy etc. It's not protected free speech.

If your own race, gender, orientation etc can't be used as evidence your crime rises to a level of "hate crime", seems we're left merely with your words, your "speech".

So, it still strikes me as we are now criminalizing what has otherwise been protected free speech. Are we chipping away at freedom of speech here?

------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern

If gays are to have the same rights and protections as the rest of us, he must veto this bill.

If I understand this bill correctly, if you or I is victimized we can onlt rely on the state and it's resources to prosecute the crime.

OTOH, if it's a gay person, the federal government will step to add it's resources, a benefit denied to us. Fair & equal?. I don't see how at this point.

Fern

You do not understand it correctly then. If you are victimized based on your gender/race/religion/etc you will have the full support of the federal government. This holds true for everyone in America.

Allrighty, I re-read it. So, in effect it's just extending the same federal coverage, available to all others, to gays.

Well, if everybody else has it that seems fair.

Still, I would prefer we drop the whole concept of "hate crimes". All violent crime is a hate crime. These rules seem to trivialize violent crime that is not a so-called hate crime.

Fern

Fern
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
However, now it is a time for everyone to stand up and be stalwart Men and Women. You have no excuse for anything you do in this country at this time. The pity party is over and it is time to take responsibility for your actions.
Your comment is irrelevant. Hate-crime laws are not about affirmative action or quotas or individuals failing to "take responsibility". They are about protecting individuals who are singled out for violent attacks because of their minority status.

How you can distort the latter into the former is mystifying.

 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: EXman
haha cause you cannot help yourself...

So basically what you are saying is that prosecutors like Nifong get to make judgements about how a criminal is FEELING and what motivated them and stick someone with a longer sentence?

How do they know what some perp is feeling? What make some groups ok and others not? Too many loopholes and too much discretion to work well in my opinion. Mandatory minimims are another bad idea.

now retract your stoopid statement stoopid! ;) why bother...

Ugh, this is what I mean. This law's provisions are based on why the offender committed the crime. Did they commit it to target a certain group, or for some other reason? This is known legally as "intent". "Intent" is relevant to a thousand other laws and is constantly used... CONSTANTLY used as a measure for both severity of a crime and punishment. The example that has been used probably about 10 times in this thread is that killing someone without intent is manslaughter, killing with intent but not premeditation is 3rd degree, and with both is 1st degree. How the killer was FEELING is all that matters between a year or 2 in jail and the death penalty. Do you think we should get rid of degrees of murder?

Please do everyone a favor and learn about how the law works before making statements like these.

Intent is the desired result of an action, not the motivation behind commiting the action. This law deals with motivation, which is normally far less relevant than intent. I think making a distinction between hate crimes as opposed to just normal crimes is pretty assinine.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Intent is the desired result of an action, not the motivation behind commiting the action. This law deals with motivation, which is normally far less relevant than intent. I think making a distinction between hate crimes as opposed to just normal crimes is pretty assinine.

From Wiki:

Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to act (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs.

In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

Motivation also goes into establishing intent as one's motivation is usually a driving factor for their actions.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Intent is the desired result of an action, not the motivation behind commiting the action. This law deals with motivation, which is normally far less relevant than intent. I think making a distinction between hate crimes as opposed to just normal crimes is pretty assinine.

From Wiki:

Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to act (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs.

In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

Motivation also goes into establishing intent as one's motivation is usually a driving factor for their actions.

Hate, greed, passion, etc. The distinctions between motivations rarely affect the charges filed. At least, I don't know of any other laws that recognize such distinctions other than hate crime laws.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Intent is the desired result of an action, not the motivation behind commiting the action. This law deals with motivation, which is normally far less relevant than intent. I think making a distinction between hate crimes as opposed to just normal crimes is pretty assinine.

You're right about the definition of intent, I should have been more clear. I do not think that it changes the applicability here however. Hate crimes still deal with intent, the consequence merely being a more racially centered one. A good example (as used before) is the Jim Crow era south. Burning crosses on people's lawns was in itself until fairly recently a crime that would be punished as a fire hazard. The Supreme Court ruled however that when they did so to terrorize, that this was subject to criminalization.

Why do you think that making this distinction is asinine? The fundamental argument is that crimes that intend to intimidate/subjugate/terrify certain segments of the population are more damaging to society as a whole, and are direct affronts to the american way of life. Due to this reason, they should be more harshly punished. In the words of Chief Justice Rheinquest "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" (taken from wiki) So, while you might not like them... the supreme court and it's hard right wing former chief justice seem to disagree. I would like to hear your reasoning for why they are bad.

I just can't see how people can be against hate crime laws. They treat everyone equally... and they are an attempt to redress a situation that existed in America that absolutely nobody can deny. There were several different periods of time in America where entire groups were terrorized and intimidated... based solely upon reasons of ethnic/religios/sexual discrimination. There are plenty of areas that exist as we speak where gays are attacked simply because of who they sleep with, and you want to treat this systematic targeting of people as just another average crime? That's sick. Something tells me if WASPs were being singled out and attacked, dragged behind cars until they died, set on fire, such that suddenly people might take a second and think about just what equality really means.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Intent is the desired result of an action, not the motivation behind commiting the action. This law deals with motivation, which is normally far less relevant than intent. I think making a distinction between hate crimes as opposed to just normal crimes is pretty assinine.

You're right about the definition of intent, I should have been more clear. I do not think that it changes the applicability here however. Hate crimes still deal with intent, the consequence merely being a more racially centered one. A good example (as used before) is the Jim Crow era south. Burning crosses on people's lawns was in itself until fairly recently a crime that would be punished as a fire hazard. The Supreme Court ruled however that when they did so to terrorize, that this was subject to criminalization.

Why do you think that making this distinction is asinine? The fundamental argument is that crimes that intend to intimidate/subjugate/terrify certain segments of the population are more damaging to society as a whole, and are direct affronts to the american way of life. Due to this reason, they should be more harshly punished. In the words of Chief Justice Rheinquest "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" (taken from wiki) So, while you might not like them... the supreme court and it's hard right wing former chief justice seem to disagree. I would like to hear your reasoning for why they are bad.

I just can't see how people can be against hate crime laws. They treat everyone equally... and they are an attempt to redress a situation that existed in America that absolutely nobody can deny. There were several different periods of time in America where entire groups were terrorized and intimidated... based solely upon reasons of ethnic/religios/sexual discrimination. There are plenty of areas that exist as we speak where gays are attacked simply because of who they sleep with, and you want to treat this systematic targeting of people as just another average crime? That's sick. Something tells me if WASPs were being singled out and attacked, dragged behind cars until they died, set on fire, such that suddenly people might take a second and think about just what equality really means.

I think they are assinine because they don't treat everyone equally. By their very nature they are giving certain people more protection under the law than others. I don't know why you assume I don't take "average" crime seriously, I think all the things you mention deserve severe penalties regardless of the motivation behind them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think they are assinine because they don't treat everyone equally. By their very nature they are giving certain people more protection under the law than others. I don't know why you assume I don't take "average" crime seriously, I think all the things you mention deserve severe penalties regardless of the motivation behind them.

This is incorrect. As mentioned earlier they protect all American citizens from crimes stemming from racial/blah blah causes. Just because gays, blacks, jews, etc are more likely to be victims of those crimes then others are does not in any way decrease your protection from them.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think they are assinine because they don't treat everyone equally. By their very nature they are giving certain people more protection under the law than others. I don't know why you assume I don't take "average" crime seriously, I think all the things you mention deserve severe penalties regardless of the motivation behind them.

This is incorrect. As mentioned earlier they protect all American citizens from crimes stemming from racial/blah blah causes. Just because gays, blacks, jews, etc are more likely to be victims of those crimes then others are does not in any way decrease your protection from them.

It is funny how people attack a law which defends them.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Hate, greed, passion, etc. The distinctions between motivations rarely affect the charges filed. At least, I don't know of any other laws that recognize such distinctions other than hate crime laws.

I'm not 100% sure about this but I would imagine that a murder committed during the "heat of passion" is most likely treated differently than a calculated, planned out murder. Each one has an identical intent of causing harm to another but the motivation behind each is a significant factor in determining the severity of the crime.

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think they are assinine because they don't treat everyone equally. By their very nature they are giving certain people more protection under the law than others. I don't know why you assume I don't take "average" crime seriously, I think all the things you mention deserve severe penalties regardless of the motivation behind them.

The problem I see with this statement is that the law seems to address the idea of treating people equally. I can't imagine a group of people who hasn't or isn't a potential victim of a hate crime. WASPs are just as vulnerable to hate crimes as any other group it just happens that within the US, they receive the least amount of focus. Everyone is protected equally by the standard laws and this merely adds on a more severe punishment for those who would harm another purely based on a singled out characteristic of a group. Discouraging the behavior of hatred based on discrimination seems to be a fundamental fight in the progression of mankind. We create judgement values all the time on the heinous nature of a crime, this law merely follows that trend by displaying that a crime committed for the sole purpose of undermining and belittling a group of people will not be tolerated.

I see alot of people claim that there's no such thing as an exclusive hate crime because all crimes are hate crimes. I'm not sure if I understand this logic so I hope someone clarifies. I'd imagine if someone stole food because they were at their wits end and had to eat soon would be treated differently than someone who steals food from someone for the sake of encouraging hardship and belittlement on a group of people based off of some characteristic that they may disapprove of.

I understand that this becomes a more difficult issue when it comes to crimes as abhorrent as murder where all murders seem unjustifiable and full of hatred but there seems to be a social consequence of equating murders based on discrimination and murders based off greed, hatred of the individual, etc. I wonder if this opens up the whole "slippery slope" argument that allowing murders based off of greed to be treated differently than murders due to discrimination would cause a preference to murder out of greed.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think they are assinine because they don't treat everyone equally. By their very nature they are giving certain people more protection under the law than others. I don't know why you assume I don't take "average" crime seriously, I think all the things you mention deserve severe penalties regardless of the motivation behind them.

This is incorrect. As mentioned earlier they protect all American citizens from crimes stemming from racial/blah blah causes. Just because gays, blacks, jews, etc are more likely to be victims of those crimes then others are does not in any way decrease your protection from them.

Even so, this law is protecting victims of crimes that fall under those criteria more so than victims of crimes that do not. These laws make a distinction between "hate" crime and "average" crime, and I am of the opinion that crime is crime, it all needs to be dealt with equally harshly. My main concern is that these laws border on attempting to legislate morality, and that causes far more problems than it solves.

Edit: To address some of the others, I think any motivations should be taken into account during the trial. Once they are established during the trial as they should be, let a judge and jury decide how it affects things or if it even should. Having the motivation written into the very law the defendant is being charged with pretty much bypasses this altogether.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Even so, this law is protecting victims of crimes that fall under those criteria more so than victims of crimes that do not. These laws make a distinction between "hate" crime and "average" crime, and I am of the opinion that crime is crime, it all needs to be dealt with equally harshly. My main concern is that these laws border on attempting to legislate morality, and that causes far more problems than it solves.

Edit: To address some of the others, I think any motivations should be taken into account during the trial. Once they are established during the trial as they should be, let a judge and jury decide how it affects things or if it even should. Having the motivation written into the very law the defendant is being charged with pretty much bypasses this altogether.

I'll be honest, I didn't read over the entire law but I thought that it just allows for harsher punishments. Aren't the punishments later determined by a sentencing hearing? I figured that the law just allows the judge or jury to increase the maximum amount of years sentenced.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Even so, this law is protecting victims of crimes that fall under those criteria more so than victims of crimes that do not. These laws make a distinction between "hate" crime and "average" crime, and I am of the opinion that crime is crime, it all needs to be dealt with equally harshly. My main concern is that these laws border on attempting to legislate morality, and that causes far more problems than it solves.

Edit: To address some of the others, I think any motivations should be taken into account during the trial. Once they are established during the trial as they should be, let a judge and jury decide how it affects things or if it even should. Having the motivation written into the very law the defendant is being charged with pretty much bypasses this altogether.

But every law does that? The criteria for the punishment for a crime are (at least in theory as I understand it... of course this won't always hold true) that they are for deterrance, the removal of dangerous individuals from society, and retribution for damages done to society. It is (and has been) the opinion of both past presidents, congresses, and supreme courts that these types of crimes inflict a greater damage to society then "normal" varients of the same crime. (as mentioned before a murder is a murder, but it is determined that a non-premeditated killing is the mark of a less dangerous individual and thereby is punished to a lesser degree) By this logic, if a crime is causing greater damage... should it not be punished more severely?

If you simply don't accept the judgement of the supreme court, congress, etc that this greater damage holds true then I guess you should say so. If that's the case then I don't see much answer other then to agree to disagree.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Even so, this law is protecting victims of crimes that fall under those criteria more so than victims of crimes that do not. These laws make a distinction between "hate" crime and "average" crime, and I am of the opinion that crime is crime, it all needs to be dealt with equally harshly. My main concern is that these laws border on attempting to legislate morality, and that causes far more problems than it solves.

Edit: To address some of the others, I think any motivations should be taken into account during the trial. Once they are established during the trial as they should be, let a judge and jury decide how it affects things or if it even should. Having the motivation written into the very law the defendant is being charged with pretty much bypasses this altogether.

I'll be honest, I didn't read over the entire law but I thought that it just allows for harsher punishments. Aren't the punishments later determined by a sentencing hearing? I figured that the law just allows the judge or jury to increase the maximum amount of years sentenced.

I assumed these carried stiffer penalties and could turn things that were not crimes before into crimes now. I've really not followed this more that just what I've gleaned here and on various news sites. I just tend be against more federal legislation and intervention that affects, umm, well anything really. :) Especially when it claims to "fix" something because God knows that's usually just a cover so they can screw it up worse than it was before.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Even so, this law is protecting victims of crimes that fall under those criteria more so than victims of crimes that do not. These laws make a distinction between "hate" crime and "average" crime, and I am of the opinion that crime is crime, it all needs to be dealt with equally harshly. My main concern is that these laws border on attempting to legislate morality, and that causes far more problems than it solves.

Edit: To address some of the others, I think any motivations should be taken into account during the trial. Once they are established during the trial as they should be, let a judge and jury decide how it affects things or if it even should. Having the motivation written into the very law the defendant is being charged with pretty much bypasses this altogether.

But every law does that? The criteria for the punishment for a crime are (at least in theory as I understand it... of course this won't always hold true) that they are for deterrance, the removal of dangerous individuals from society, and retribution for damages done to society. It is (and has been) the opinion of both past presidents, congresses, and supreme courts that these types of crimes inflict a greater damage to society then "normal" varients of the same crime. (as mentioned before a murder is a murder, but it is determined that a non-premeditated killing is the mark of a less dangerous individual and thereby is punished to a lesser degree) By this logic, if a crime is causing greater damage... should it not be punished more severely?

If you simply don't accept the judgement of the supreme court, congress, etc that this greater damage holds true then I guess you should say so. If that's the case then I don't see much answer other then to agree to disagree.

How does one make that determination? Ask the victim of a "hate" crime vs. an "average" crime of their damage and I'm sure you'll get similar responses. Someone getting the crap beaten out of them because they were gay vs. just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or the family members of a murder victim of one that's racially motivated vs. one that's out of greed or passion.

Rarely do I look to politicians of any kind for sound opinions on anything. Most of them are ass-kissing, self-serving, professional liers who on the rare occasion actually do manage to do the right thing it's more often by accident than design. So, yeah, I guess I don't buy the greater damage argument. At least not in so far as them needing to make specific legislation regarding it.