speaking_up's tags:

Congress may be passing a hate crimes bill that gives protection for pedophiles.

I suspect this is because since the age of the internet, pedophilia has finally reared its ugly head up front and in public.  Previously, little girls and boys were considered to be fantasizing, imagining, or outright lying about the adults who were messing with them.  Getting a conviction was nearly impossible because the word of a little girl or boy was just not good enough.

Now that we can see the videos, the child pornography, etc. flashing around the internet like an epidemic...and newsmagazines such as dateline are catching these perverts in action on film in record numbers (catching them is the record numbers, not the act...it's been going on since the beginning of  time).

Anyway, the knee jerk reaction has been fathers or mothers or other significant others being so outraged by learning that their own child was put through such a horrible ordeal...they are going out and killing/maiming pedophiles in equally record numbers.

We can't have this.

There is a justice system in place, and vigilance service is not the answer for a civilized society.  Even serial killers, even the worst of the worst of us, deserve equality under the law, or we are doomed.

I am not a violent person.  However, if I learned that anyone messed with my son or my granddaughter, my first reaction would be to kill or harm that person.  It is a normal feeling of protection we parents have.  So there must be a law to protect the pedophiles, I am afraid.

And, the law will protect the family members of the abused, as well.  People need to think twice before taking the law into their own hands.

Do you agree with this law being passed? 

 


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • travelr712 said on May 17, 2009....
    i followed your comment from my post about this one speaking, so i know why this question came up for you. in the other post, jd seemed to phrase his statement in a way that said anyone who was accused of being a pedophile 'deserved what they got', and should be afforded no protection under the law. as you have so elloquently stated here, that is simply not true. all that is needed to be labeled or convicted of pedophelia is posessing pictures of people under the age of 18. as in the case of pete townsend a few years ago, he stated he was simply doing research on the subject, and was convicted nonetheless. so, someone can just posess pictures, be convicted, and end up a victim of a hate crime with no protection from vigilante action, which would be wrong. in my opinion, just having a picture does not make one a pedophile, any more than having a picture of a naked male over the age of 18 makes a person gay, or reading the bible makes a person a christian. it is in the actual physical act that one becomes. if you are baptised, or take a vow in front of a congregation (depending on the denomination), then you are said to be a christian.
     
    as you've stated here, the awareness of the subject is what has changed in recent years due to mass media such as the internet. with this increased awareness comes an emotional response from many, as is normal in human sociology. this emotional response can lead to the same types of hate crimes as were propogated against abortion clinic doctors. the doctor's right to not be victimized because of these emotional responses therefore required them to be legally protected under american law, just as with homosexuals, minorities and any number of 'groups' that have been on the receiving end.
  • speaking_up said on May 17, 2009....
    @trav...yes, I was thinking about that as well, homosexuals, people who choose abortion, AFRICAN AMERICANS, and this list could go on and on.  Right-wing fundementalist types who have no experience with minorities will argue that nobody needs special protection.  They may say the constitution already protects everybody. 
     
    Our history in vigilante behavior says otherwise.  People sometimes assume that because the act of the perpretator is so outrageous to their sensibilities, it is okay to take the law into their own hands...and have this sense of feeling justified...and get supported by the members of the community who agree with them.
     
     
  • speaking_up said on May 17, 2009....
    Oh, and thanks for linking the subject here!!!
  • travelr712 said on May 17, 2009....
    those same right-wing fundamentalists expect there to be vaults, guards and cameras in their banks, even though their money is already protected by law, don't they speaking? judging by the number and diversity of american laws dealing with theft, apparantly 'thou shalt not steal' just wasn't enough.
     
    and you're welcome for the link :-)
  • travelr712 said on May 17, 2009....
    i glossed right over the second half of your comment speaking. you're certainly right about that. it was somewhat wrapped up in the question of my other post.
     
    the perpretator is so outrageous to their sensibilities,
     
    this is one of the subjects that was wrapped up in my original intent of the other post. just because you or i may find that something offends our sensibilities, does not mean that everyone is offended. those who would use their version of 'morality' to in one way or another force everyone to live under said morality in my opinion are, at best, socialists, and more likely totalitarian.
     
    america was founded on diversity. diverse cultures, religions, viewpoints and moralities. in the three core documents that defined this nation, the declairation of independance, the constitution, and the bill of rights, only one even mentions any type of morality or any form of diety, the declairation of independance, and that is only to say that humans have rights given by 'their creator' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this further guaranties anyone the right to pursue that happiness in any way they see fit. no conservative moral restrictions in that as far as i can see. and being that this was not a document used to define the government or civil structure of this nation, rather it is a declairation of war on another country, it does not apply in any sense to what we are talking about here.
  • speaking_up said on May 17, 2009....
    trav..."apparantly 'thou shalt not steal' just wasn't enough."
     
    LOL, exactly.  It's clear that added legislation needs to be enacted as we evolve!
     
    And again, there are so many interest groups that if allowed to run amok and put the law into their own hands to suit their beliefs, morals, values, etc., there would be no point for a justice system at all!
     
    People are people and not any one of us, and not any one group, has the best solution to society problems.
     
    I am curious...there are so many pedofiles (as we learned about homosexuals when it was finally allowed out in the open), that it makes me wonder about the nature and make up of man.  I have learned that pedofilia is a sexual orientation...A SEXUAL ORIENTATION!  Wow, we have been tolerant with homosexuals (as we should be, what goes on in one's bedroom is no ones business but the people involved)...I see that transgender is an actual biological chromozone mix up...I see we have cross dressers who are heterosexual, and so on and so forth.  We have such a mix of people who make up our population...it really leaves me in a state of confusion about what to do with the pedofiles. 
     
    I saw a program the other day where  a little girl went missing.  The registered offender program highlighted the homes within the area where sexual preditors, or pedofiles, live...and to see the neighborhood map dotted with so many known registered offenders, WOW!  is what I have to say about that, or any other neighborhood.  I mean, I knew it just by my own personal experiences.  Before I was 14 I was abused, touched, or approached by too many to count on both hands.  If I had this many people approaching me, wtf?  Now, because of the registered offender program, and technology we can see what we didn't want to see in years previous.
     
    We know for a fact that jail doesn't 'fix' them anymore than jail fixed homosexuality.  There is no treatment to force people to change.  The only difference between this sexual orientation, and any other sexual orientation, in my view, is that children are involved and they are incapable of giving consent.  And we all know we need to protect the children and so laws keeping it illegal must remain.
     
    *sigh* I have to sign out...still ill from my little problem yesterday and the furnace is up to 104 right now...
     
    til later...
     
    ps, and pardon all my spelling errors...I'm just wiped and didn't take as much time as I like to!
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    You two are two peas in a pod, you know that? Right-wing fundamentalists going after AFRICAN-AMERICANS and have no experience with minorities? WTF??

    First of all, you can both bite my ass as far as I'm concerned.

    Second, as a victim of child molestation, I would have expected a whole different perspective from you, speaking.

    Third, if anyone -- Caucasian, non-Caucasian, man, woman, straight, gay, old, young -- molested even one of my kids, there would simply be hell to pay. I don't care if it were 30 seconds worth on a city bus (since we're talking vigilantes, let's point this one out) or behind my back for years, I hardly believe that death itself for an offender would be sufficient enough to erase my child's mental trauma, physical abuse and cure my wrath.

    Now let's get down to brass tax : Pedophilia -- the act of diddling a child or worse -- is a mental virus. You're not born a pedophile. If you watch adults do it, or are a victim of it, you don't rush out to do it yourself (in fact most victims of it grow up to be the opposite, because they come to know that it is not only wrong, but they wouldn't want to bring that sort of trauma, agony or pain upon another). Once someone does it, much like other violent crime, it becomes a sociopathic addiction and that person keeps doing more and more sick things to top their last encounter and feed their sickness. Since most pedophiles eventually feel no guilt (like serial killers) they eventually go on to do even more violent crimes. They are a direct threat to society. That's why the state has found it useful to have their presence known in neighborhoods full of kids. It's for everybody's protection.

    Now, on the flip side of those last two statements, I do not agree with the over-embellishment of a situation when two under-aged kids (i.e. both 16-18 years old -- under 16 is still SO wrong and if either party is an adult then they DO deserve to be called out as predators) are thrown through the courts by one or both parents and one of them gets dumped onto the "sexual predators" list. I can see the logic behind it, but I simply don't agree with it. My parents got together at 16, had me at 17, and my father's family (as fractured as it was) got them through to where they could raise their family. Had my mother's family pursued legal action, I would have been aborted and they would have never married nor carried on, because my father would have been dubbed a sexual predator, which isn't true.
  • beyondtheveil said on May 18, 2009....
    java- The cause or causes of pedophilia have not been established. Everything from heredity to biological have been suggested. The research that has been done is as close as Google. The only thing I know of that people agree on is that it doesn't seem to be curable.

    speaking - I am for laws against hate crimes.
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    BTE -- Sure, the same had been suggested about homosexuality. So what's the solution? "Suppress the pedo gene??" And until then we just allow it to go on!?

    (*whiny voice*) It's just a sickness... He doesn't know what he's doing... You can't punish him for being that way... It's not his fault...

    What a crock of shit.
  • Hegemone said on May 18, 2009....
    Well, even if that law was passed you would still have people choosing to "do the time for the crime" because they just couldn't live with themselves if they didn't punish the pedophile.  Also, if the message isn't clearly stated when the legislation is presented, it might not look as if it's truly meant to protect the victim's family as well, it will only look like a bunch of pedophiles got together, started whining and tried to get some bill passed into law ... and it's going to be a tough fight.  This is a very delicate issue.  I do believe, perhaps that SOMETHING should be done to protect the pedophiles to keep the victims from ruining their own life, or making the actual victim child's life harder via losing a parent (or both), having yet another ugly memory, having long court time because of a lawsuit, etc.

    That or we need to get really extensive and start training some biochemists and other scientists to really research human DNA and figure out what little strand or whatever says "This one is going to be a pedophile!" and then learn to remove it all together.  That's not likely to happen, but then, at the same time you have to wonder ... how well will the legislation go over?  Very good post speaking, this was incredibly thought provoking.  As I'm currently at work I can't delve in too much further ... but very good!
  • superbozo said on May 18, 2009....
    In truth I have very little faith in the legal system. Sometimes the last thing it delivers is justice. Sure it is better than lynching but there are times that it just can't or won't do what people think it should. If someone commits a crime what difference does it make what motivated it. If someone attackes someone for racial reasons why does that differ from someone who attacks someone to rob them. If someone attacks someone for sexual assualting someone adult or child (law dictates that under 16 can't give consent) should they really be treated any differently. I know that if someone touched my little girl no law would stop me. A good friend once said to me "it's a free world, we have a right to do anything and society has the right to disagree and throw your ass in jail. You know in advance if it's illegal or not"
     
    Well if push came to shove I would happily stand in front of a jury to answer the why I killed a pedophile who assualted my daughter of even a rapist if she were an adult. There is no need to distinguish between why I killed or a bankrobber killed. It's against the law period. Does someone who murdered someone who sexually assualted his child deserve to get more time in jail to someone who murdered a householder during a robbery. If someone assualts a gay man for being gay does it make any difference if someone else assualts someone to rob them. Will people be accused of racial assualt just because the person they assualted is of a different race even if they admit that the motive was robbery.
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    It just sounds like another way to marginalize or rationalize bad behavior and not be responsible for their actions.

    The rationale being used here is that :

    A black man stealing a white woman's purse obviously isn't a hate crime, because that black man doesn't know any better, doesn't have a good education, didn't have the advantage of having a father figure, and he had been socially abused by 'whitey' so therefore it is right and proper for him to steal that purse and damn that white girl! She should have just held out her purse, or better yet just given up her money to the man in the first place.

    It's no different than :

    Three black men raping a white girl is not a hate crime, because that black man has an over-active libido and doesn't know how to control it. He doesn't have a good education and the advantage of a father figure and hates women like he hated his bitter mother who hated his father for not supporting them when he was young. He has obviously been sexually repressed by those Caucasians and this white girl was obviously flaunting it and deserved what she got, and damn that white girl for not giving it up to him in the first place.

    This type of society is for fucking brain-dead liberal idiots! It's all okay, so long as it doesn't happen to them... Justice to them in that case is relative... What are we now? Fucking animals!? Survival of the fittest would leave the sly foxes in charge of the hen house! This is all just slavery in reverse, not freedom.
  • curmudgeon said on May 18, 2009....
    Regarding so-called "hate crimes" law: The law is supposed to apply to everyone, not just particular groups. Why is it a "hate crime" when a white person assaults a black person, but not a hate crime when a black person assaults a white? Is it a hate crime when a black assaults an Asian person? WHY NOT?? This is not equality under the law and completely undermines the concept that all people are created equal. A system that grants special rights and privileges to politically favored minorities runs completely afoul of the notion that we are all equal under the law. Hate crimes law is no way to redress social inequalities because laws are almost completely impossible to repeal. In the eyes of the law and of society, politically favored minorities who are offered special protections under the law will never have equal status to those in the majority.

    The law, can, however, be amended to distinguish between those who possess banned materials but do not physically molest children, and those who do. The law also can and ought to distinguish between the 21 year old falling in love with the 17 year old sweetheart and the recidivist 40 year old serially raping 9 year olds.  This requires that legislators take up their work with level heads.

    Serial child molestation ought to carry a life sentence. If there is neither diagnosis nor cure, these people will remain a threat to innocent children for their natural lives and ought to be separated from society for their own safety as well as the safety of children.
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    that seems to be what the debate over the bill is about sb. but the bill isn't just about pedophiles, they aren't specifically named at all:
     

    An existing federal hate crime legislation, passed in 1969, is a very narrowly based law. It only applies if the victim of a violent crime is engaged in one of six federally protected activities, and then only:
     
    bullet

    If the perpetrator is found guilty of the crime, and

    bullet

    If it can be shown that the crime was motivated by a hatred of the victim's race, color, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.

    If both can be proven, then the perpetrator is given a higher than usual sentence.

    The 1969 law covers a hate crimes motivated by race, color, national origin and religion. But it did not extend to other categories: bullet

    Women and men who are physically attacked because of their gender.

    bullet

    Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals who are attacked because of their sexual orientation.

    bullet

    Cisgendered persons, transsexuals, and transgendered persons who are attacked because of their sexual identity. ("Sexual identity" is the gender that a person perceives themselves to be. The vast majority of adults are cisgendered: their perceived and genetic gender match. However, transgendered persons often describe themselves as having a brain of one gender trapped in an opposite-gendered body.)

    bullet

    Able-bodied and disabled persons who are attacked because of their disability status.

    The proposed law extends coverage to include these four additional categories: gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and disability.

    Unfortunately, through selective reporting, many conservative news sources imply that the law only protects homosexuals. In fact, it covers everyone, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Also, as noted above, it protects both men and women, persons of all sexual identities, and of all degrees of disability. Every person would be protected in four additional ways.

    the entire controversy has come about because Steve King, a republican (go figure) wanted to add an amendment to specifically exclude pedophiles from the 'sexual orientation' definition. of course, this meant that anyone who opposed this amendment was automatically labeled as supporting or protecting pedophiles.

    so, what we have here is a republican alarmist tactic much like javadewd has done here that inspired this post, made the issue about pedophiles when the bill was about all hate crimes. which is in itself a hate crime.

  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    as i posted here curmudgeon, the bill does consider it to be the same crime. javadewd just didn't do his homework.
  • superbozo said on May 18, 2009....
    I think this sort of legislation is a smoke and mirror tactic by politicians. To make it look like they are taking a hardline when in fact nothing changes. Give people the impression that they are doing something. A crime is a crime. Assualt is assualt and murder is murder. Here politicians are buying into various groups saying that more needs to be done and trying to give the impression it is being done by introducing a bill. 
    The idea of laws is to prevent crime. Laws have never stopped anything. It makes no difference as far as I'm concerned what motivated the crime. Suddenly having subclassifications just blur everything. A jury may find someone not guilty just because a clever lawyer blurs the lines. Here politicians are blurring the lines saying one type of assualt is more serious than another. Before you know it someone will get less time for robbery with assualt and someone will get more time because he got into a punch up in the bar with someone of a different race.
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    You're missing the point of the bill, Trav. It's reverse racism, which was my point in the last comment I made! Whoever allowed this shit to pass unchecked is only going to butt rape this country and give it anal cancer. Congratulations, BOA!
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    no, i didn't miss the point of the bill jd, it's in the first paragraph of the article you linked:
     

    Conviction of a hate crime carries stepped up punishment, above and beyond that meted out for the attack. The bill would allow the federal government to help state and local authorities investigate hate crimes.

    also in your article:

    Earlier this year, Congress passed two other major bills derailed during the Bush administration.

    One, vetoed by Bush, would have expanded a federal health insurance program for children. The other, blocked by Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate, would have reversed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to make it easier to sue for discrimination in the workplace.

    so i could very easily say that republicans, and specifically bush, blocked health care for underpriveledged children and legislation that would make it easier to sue for discrimination in the workplace, and instead supported legislation that has killed tens of thousands of innocent iraqi men, women and children. congratulatons GWB!

     all of my viewpoints are accurate and verified, much of it from your own article. yours, and the republican party's argument against this bill is like saying the bill of rights guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone regardless of race, creed or sex is reverse discrimination. and the very argument against it was started with an amendment by a republican to exclude a particular 'type' of person. there is your discrimination.

     

  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    the idea of laws have never been to prevent crime sb, a law has no ability to prevent a crime. the purpose of law is to determine what is classified as a crime and direct punishment for that crime.
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    @java "as a victim of child molestation, I would have expected a whole different perspective from you, speaking."
    I guess I don't always think with my emotions.  Maybe I'm growing up.  I hear your anger, and I have the same anger toward child sexual abuse.  Don't confuse my disagreement with vigilante behavior with acceptance of the crime.
     
    (*whiny voice*) It's just a sickness... He doesn't know what he's doing... You can't punish him for being that way... It's not his fault...
    Exact same words used when discussing the delegalization of homosexuality, which people spent years in jail for the crime of sodomy.
     
    @btv...thanks for your input!
     
    @Hegemon..."I do believe, perhaps that SOMETHING should be done to protect the pedophiles to keep the victims from ruining their own life, or making the actual victim child's life harder via losing a parent (or both), having yet another ugly memory, having long court time because of a lawsuit, etc."
     
    This is more of a concern to me, than anything.  (and thanks so much for the compliment!)
     
    @Superbozo..."Well if push came to shove I would happily stand in front of a jury to answer the why I killed a pedophile who assualted my daughter of even a rapist if she were an adult."
     
    Right.  You are not alone.  I think we can all say this.  However, when you get packed off to jail, and are no longer there for your daughter...and you will go to jail, maybe not on a murder 1 charge...but you will be jailed for homicide of one degree or another.  Murder is murder.  And what are you leaving back at home?  Your family who are trying to pick up the pieces from the crime of sexual assault.  You will be missing your daughter's wedding, the birth of her child, etc. etc...how much have you really accomplished?  Sure you saved the world from the likes of the molestor, but you ruined your own family in the process.
     
    A father protecting his child IS to be admired.  But assuming your rage is a result of love toward your daughter, and not a need to satisfy your own inner turmoil and inability to control yourself, you would not take the law into your own hands. 
     
    Think about all of the different interest groups throughout the world.  Anti-abortionists, for just one example,...well, wouldn't they be just as justified as you to kill the doctor to save all of the babies?  Wouldn't they be just as proud to stand before a jury?  What about the fundementalist christians who are trained to hate homosexuals, and throughout time have killed, tortured, and haunted these folks and would proudly stand before a jury and their God. 
     
    We need order in this society.  Without law and order, we may as well fire the justice system and go back to clubbing our wives for disobedience, while we are at it.
     
    Your crime against another human being, for whatever reason, makes you no better than a person commiting any other crime, in answer to all of your questions at the end of your comment.
     
    @java..."It just sounds like another way to marginalize or rationalize bad behavior and not be responsible for their actions."
    Yes, it does, doesn't it?  The vigilante behavior, is what I mean.
     
    "This type of society is for fucking brain-dead liberal idiots! It's all okay, so long as it doesn't happen to them... Justice to them in that case is relative... What are we now? Fucking animals!? Survival of the fittest would leave the sly foxes in charge of the hen house! 
     
    Right.  And the family of the pedofile who first suffer the embarrassment of their family members actions, then to know the family member had his balls cut off, dragged through the streets tied to a car, and other torturous deeds?  This family just, "suck it up, buttercup" because they are family associated with a monster and deserve that kind of pain and grief?  The pedofile is free meat for all of the roaming around angry people like you in this world?
     
    In fact, what you are describing is the return to animal behavior we need to prevent and the point of this post.
     
    @curmud..."Is it a hate crime when a black assaults an Asian person? WHY NOT?? This is not equality under the law and completely undermines the concept that all people are created equal."
     
    I like this point of yours, very well put.
     
    "The law, can, however, be amended to distinguish between those who possess banned materials but do not physically molest children, and those who do. The law also can and ought to distinguish between the 21 year old falling in love with the 17 year old sweetheart and the recidivist 40 year old serially raping 9 year olds.  This requires that legislators take up their work with level heads."
     
    Another excellent point and one that needs addressing immediately.
     
    "Serial child molestation ought to carry a life sentence. If there is neither diagnosis nor cure, these people will remain a threat to innocent children for their natural lives and ought to be separated from society for their own safety as well as the safety of children."
     
    Currently child abuse felons do not serve life sentences, and do come back out into society, often in much worse shape than when they went it, only to continue creating havic on society with added rage.  The law thinks the registration program will protect our kids.  It won't and doesn't.
     
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    With the exception of families who have suffered from a sexual assault within the family, I think within the heart of our collective souls, the average person would find it difficult to sentence someone to life for an assault on a child.  There are a few reasons for this including:  children are the least valued and therefore protected in our society...women are second least.  Thus, crimes against these groups are not taken as seriously as the ones against the average white male joe.  (this is a fact).  Women and children who suffer physical abuse are not afforded justice even today, as much as the guy who gets beaten by another guy in a bar.  Then it is considered 'real assault' and a felony and real jail time is handed down.  
     
    When is the last time you heard about a man who beat his wife serving more than a few months at the most?  What is the difference in crimes?  But somehow, there is a difference in our minds, and the sentences reflect that.
     
    A child, who cannot protect themselves AT ALL, gets beaten at home by mom or dad, and after a little bit of counseling and parenting courses, the child is returned to the same people who assaulted them.  We cannot swallow the idea that those parents are criminal, and need to be locked away for the child's protection.  Instead, our laws say the child is ultimately better off with his or her biological family. wtf?
     
    I don't think we can swallow the idea of putting a child molester in jail for the rest of his life if the crime did not involve blood, or two or more 'stranger' children.  I say stranger because most child molesters are in the family.  It is uncle billy, or grampa pete, or stepfather dave.  Teacher mr. smith, or coach tom, or babysitter sally are given much harsher sentences than the more common family variety child molestor.  Funny, the child is usually much more emotionally harmed by the family molestation, than the stranger one.  Entire families become fragmented over the issue, sides are taken, and the kid is left to wonder what they did wrong for the rest of their god-forsaken life.
     
    I know.  Just ask me.
     
    But I am digressing...
     
    The point is, with the exception of the families directly involved, society will find it impossible to value the crime enough to put someone away for life without the blood.
     
     
  • curmudgeon said on May 18, 2009....
    travelr - the point of any law is that it apply to EVERYONE, not just politically preferred minorities.

    Again - complete failure to address the very real complexities of hate crimes law - is it a hate crime for a hispanic to assault a white person? How about for a hispanic to assault a black person? How about for a black to assault an asian?

    How is it possibly any "worse" for one person being assaulted than another, simply because of how the perpetrator "felt" about the victim?

    The law should not tilt in favor of anyone, nor offer special protections or offer more severe consequences for attacking particular groups. If you want harsher punishments for assault, let it apply to assaults of all kinds, regardless of race, gender, etc. If you want harsher punishments for child molestation, let it apply to all child molestors.

    Anything other than this is simply not equality under the law.

    Let's think of it this way - white guy would preder to assault say a black person, but knows that if caught he will do harder time for it. So he assaults another white guy. Doesn't this, under your definition, have just as much to do with the vitims' race?

    These laws are useless and stupid and even worse they aren't going to be equally applied.
  • superbozo said on May 18, 2009....
    You bring up valid points speaking. I may cause my family more harm than good. However we don't need legisalation to tell us the differences though. Someone who kills for their own reasons has commited a crime under law. Unless your actions are excused or justified under law as in self defence.
     
    I would still be tempted to kill anyone that interfered with my daughter. I would also hope to be clever enough to get away with it. :)
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    under the proposed bill, all of your examples are equal. anyone committing an assault against anyone else based on race is subject to this law, no matter the race of the perpetrator or the victim. so yes, a hispanic assaulting a caucasion based on race is no different than a caucasian assaulting a hispanic.
     
    and no, many laws do not apply to everyone. some apply only to women. some apply only to certain minorities. some apply only to CEO's. some apply only to members of congress. the ammendments to the constitution and the bill of rights were made to further define the laws that were implied in those documents when further definition was warrented.
     
    The whole problem with this subject is that the word 'pedophile' has been singled out, which makes people angry and nervous. I have a post from a couple days ago asking a specific hypothetical question about an impossible situation derived from an episode of a television program, and it was stated that the commenters were 'being kind not to accuse me of wanting to bugger 12 year olds', or something very much close to that. all because of an emotional reaction to the word and concept of 'pedophile'. which this bill is not about, but what the republican party, and javadewd, has made it about. so now, all you see it as is a bill that singles out pedophiles for protection against unlawful retribution, instead of a bill that also protects women, blacks, asians, caucasians, iraqi's and martians from unlawful retribution. the very thing you are arguing for is already in the bill. but here's the thing. the republicans can't play the 'homosexual card' on this one, so they're playing the 'pedophile card'. if they are successful in their bid for an exclusionary ammendment, then homosexual exclusion from protection could very well be next, then children, then whoever they decide to focus on so that this bill is so full of holes it is useless, which is their goal.
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    Trav, you're either blind or deaf. That won't happen with this bill. Do you honestly think that a black person committing a crime against a white person will challenge this law? Yes, it should, but it won't. It will only go to make it twice the crime for a white person committing a crime. It'll have no bearing on anyone else. None.

    All things white, it is still a law protecting The Woodsman. The sad fact is that the character portrayed in the end doesn't really change. In fact, by enacting such a law is like the federal government saying "don't give him dirty looks." It's absurd. I refuse to adopt BO's narcissistic view of "if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist." If his daughters were at all affected by such a predator, I'm sure his reaction would be no different from the rest of us, if not worse, but since it doesn't, oh well. NIMBY.

    And to make matters worse, this is one in a series of laws that are coming down the pike to make it a "hate crime" for churches to preach against deviant acts, beit polygamy, sodomy, rape or pedophilia. It already happened in Canada, and it will soon happen here... Without remorse. Next we'll have ssm, beastiality and child brides. What else is fair game now that the BOA has wormed its way into office!?

    And don't sit there and say I'm playing some 'pedophilia' card when the 13th word of this post is PEDOPHILES. You can flip it around all you want to, but if you diddle 12 year olds, you need to be made to suffer. Any man that doesn't agree either doesn't want kids, doesn't have kids, or would molest kids. You can't have it both ways.
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    *sigh*
     
    I have been dupped by yet another right-wing extremist.  Java was in another thread commenting about a bill that will give protection to pedophiles.  In fact, a lot of right-wing extremists are creating drama over this bill including WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, and was the first to dub the proposed bill (see below) the "Pedophile Protection Act." and said in her column it was an extreme danger to america!  And, we have hysteria ever since.
     
    Fear mongerers always scare me.  We got fooled into believing Iraq was on the verge of hitting us with the next atomic bomb what with all of the WMD ready to get fired up, so we took our young sons and put them over there to kill the bastards...and their families.  We agreed we should, because GWB fed on our existing fears of terror and used 9/11 as his golden opportunity to invade a country that we all now know had nothing to do with WMD.
     
    I'm sick to death of the bullshit hysteria put out by the extremists in our country!
     
    I've done my homework, and no such bill is being considered.  Here is a summary of the bill java may have been town-crying about...
     
    (if I am wrong java, and you have access to another bill I've missed...please BRING IT ON!)
     
    a summary...
     
    Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Adopts the definition of "hate crime" as set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person).

    (Sec. 3) Authorizes the Attorney General, at the request of a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of a violent crime, a hate crime, or a crime that constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal law. Directs the Attorney General, in providing such assistance, to give priority to cases involving crimes committed in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.

    Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Requires the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to work with grantees to address the needs and concerns of all affected parties in implementing grants. Sets forth requirements governing the submission and approval of grant applications. Limits the amount of any grant to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.

    (Sec. 4) Authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to award grants to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. Authorizes appropriations.

    (Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2012 to increase DOJ personnel to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in combating hate crimes.

    (Sec. 6) Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to 10 years for violations and a life term if a death results from a violation or certain other violent crimes are involved. Requires the Attorney General or other designated DOJ official to certify certain findings before initiating a prosecution for a hate crime. Sets a seven-year statute of limitations on prosecuting such an offense not resulting in death. Prohibits the admission of evidence as substantive evidence in a hate crime prosecution of the expression or associations of a defendant unless the evidence specifically relates to the hate crime offense.

    (Sec. 7) Provides that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act.

    (Sec. 8) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
     
    **************************************************************************
     
    Where is the special protection for pedophiles in this act...?  I can't find it, and if you can please share...
     
    Perhaps pedophiles will gain protection under this law, because it has been determined by the psychiatric association to be a sexual orientation.
     
    But those crying foul for not getting equality (curmud)...I think you better wipe that egg off of your face.
     
    I apologise for not investigating the bill before alarming as much as the right-wing extremists have alarmed america.
     
    I see this bill as a long overdue statute because there are extraordinary costs associated with hate crimes of all varieties, and this simply provides the funds for the justice system to do it's job.
     
    Would like your thoughts on THIS bill, if you care to share...
     
     
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    the "Pedophile Protection Act." ????????????
     
     GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    trav...either i missed your earlier researched post, or for some reason it did not show up for me until now...oop!
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    what will or won't happen cannot be proven jd, only speculated. i heard the same alarmist language about the civil rights bill and the gay rights legislation. it just doesn't fly. it is pure speculation as to how this bill would be used.
     
    and yes, i hope it does keep people who stand in a pulpet with the assumed arbitrary power invested by an imaginary diety from influencing millions of people to be biased and intolerant. those same 'preachers' worked for years, both socially and politically, to silence blacks, gays, minorities, and anyone else who didn't see things the way they did. i know, i sat there and heard them do it. i heard it on television from them. i read it in the newspapers and blogs. i heard chuck swindall say to millions on his radio program that it is good and right and holy to be intolerant of homosexuals. and all the while, they want to silence homosexuals from standing up for their rights guaranteed under the constitution. preaching hate - god hates this, that and the other thing and you should too - should be under scrutiny because of the effects it has on people.
     
    you know as well as i do jd that this post was written in response to your comment on the other post about the 'pedophile protection act'. you played the 'pedophile card' and didn't even notice it? you and the republicans and their radio and television talk show supporters such as o'rielly and hannity have made this issue about protecting pedophiles. here is what the issue is actually about:
     

    The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.

    The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

    this is not about letting convicted pedophiles escape justice. this is about expanding existing law to protect more people in more situations from people who believe that:

    but if you diddle 12 year olds, you need to be made to suffer.

    how they are made to suffer, in america jd, is not your right to decide. if you wish to live in a country where men of particular religious groups determine how others are made to suffer, i would suggest pakistan or afghanistan.

  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    you're exactly right speaking, java got you all riled up. this bill was actually changed to the name of the young man who was captured, tortured and physically crucified by some 'fine upstanding christian young men' specifically because he was gay and for no other reason. as i have been saying, this bill is not about protecting pedophiles specifically. the whole 'pedophile protection act' language came from a republican congressman trying to add an amendment to the bill that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill. jd's heart may (or may not) be in the right place, but his facts are not.
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    i sorta wondered speaking... :-)
  • stopmediabias said on May 18, 2009....

    The way that I see this whole thing is the Republican who wanted to exclude pedo's from this bill was looking at the sentencing.  If someone rapes an 11 year old girl and that girls father shoots him and kills him should he get life in prison?  If the father beats the guy severely should he get 10 years?  While obviously we are nation of laws and vigilantism is not the way to go I don't believe someone should get life in prison and it shouldn't be considered a hate crime. 

    Any serial pedophile should not get treatment, life in prison, sympathy, protection, nothing but a messy death and it should be publically advertised before, during, and after.  I think we make too many exuses for these people when they should be looked on as the lowest forms that deserve nothing but agony and/or death.  However much of a pervert someone is, they can control it with the right societal persuation.  

     

  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    Trav's just pissed because he can't make such an exciting and popular post...

    Besides, the bill was named after a gay kid who got robbed. [source][source]
    Again, it gives unbalanced justice to a "protected" class. [source][source]
    It creates dual sovereignty for a "protected" class. [source]
    It gags church pastors. [source]

    It protects pedophiles in this manner (I'm so glad I found this) : If you catch a pedophile in the act of abusing a child and use force to remove them, then that pedophile can press charges against you for assault and as a hate crime... So basically they can rape kids in the street and dare you to "beat them off."

    So, I think I'll send a list of these offenders to Trav and Speaking's towns so that these offenders can do this fun act to children in their front yard to drive my point home. Pedophilia is wrong and should not get federal support to be "politically correct."
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    trav..."if you wish to live in a country where men of particular religious groups determine how others are made to suffer, i would suggest pakistan or afghanistan."
     
    Well said!  And couldn't agree more.
     
    "this bill was actually changed to the name of the young man who was captured, tortured and physically crucified by some 'fine upstanding christian young men' specifically because he was gay and for no other reason. as i have been saying, this bill is not about protecting pedophiles specifically. the whole 'pedophile protection act' language came from a republican congressman trying to add an amendment to the bill that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill. jd's heart may (or may not) be in the right place, but his facts are not."
     
    Yes, I found the same research...however, it was a religious columnist who first coined the term, Pedophile Protection Act.  The congressman must have picked up on it.
     
    @stop..."Any serial pedophile should not get treatment, life in prison, sympathy, protection, nothing but a messy death and it should be publically advertised before, during, and after."
     
     When were you born, stop?  1009?  or 1009 bc?  Certainly you are an old soul with no evolutional growth whatsoever.
     
    @Java..."Trav's just pissed because he can't make such an exciting and popular post..."
     
    Hum, thanks?
     
    Sometimes jealousy can be seen when one finger is pointed at someone, and the other four point back to the face of the accuser.
     
    "If you catch a pedophile in the act of abusing a child and use force to remove them, then that pedophile can press charges against you for assault and as a hate crime... So basically they can rape kids in the street and dare you to "beat them off."

    Wow, you are really grasping at straws here!  It's just to obsurd to even comment on.  So I won't.
     
    ..."So, I think I'll send a list of these offenders to Trav and Speaking's towns so that these offenders can do this fun act to children in their front yard to drive my point home. Pedophilia is wrong and should not get federal support to be "politically correct."
     
    Where has anyone said pedophilia is okay?  And, where in the bill, your so-called Pedophilia Protection Act (barf), does this federal 'support' to be politically correct, happen?
     
    Sorry, with the anger I sense in you, Java, I wouldn't touch your links with a bullet proof 'puter.
     
    You need to calm down and control yourself by not offering false testimony, Java, if you are to have any creditability whatsoever.
     
    I sense people speaking on this and another topics like this actually do some research on their stands.  I see you as foaming at the mouth without reliable sources to back up your rants.  I am very disappointed.
     
    I'm still very, very pissed at you.  But more angry at myself, for allowing myself to get wrapped up in your extremist fear mongering.
     
    @trav...!  Why didn't you say something?  I still feel just horrible because your points suit so well!
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    (speaking to java) Wow, you are really grasping at straws here!  It's just to obsurd to even comment on.  So I won't.
     
    that's exactly what i thought, so i didn't :-)
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    @stop...I have to go back to your first paragraph...
     
    "The way that I see this whole thing is the Republican who wanted to exclude pedo's from this bill was looking at the sentencing.  If someone rapes an 11 year old girl and that girls father shoots him and kills him should he get life in prison?  If the father beats the guy severely should he get 10 years?  While obviously we are nation of laws and vigilantism is not the way to go I don't believe someone should get life in prison and it shouldn't be considered a hate crime."
     
    1st sentence...could be. 
    2nd...Depends on his criminal history to me.  If no violent background...no.
    3rd....It depends on the result of his sentence report (prepared by prosecution and defence), and criminal background.   If positive community member previous, absolutely not...but some punishment must be served to make an example that vigilante law is not acceptable.
    4th...I agree.  I do not see a vigilatism toward pedophiles as a hate crime, more like a crime of passion...but with intent and premeditation elements.  but I do see pedophilia as a sexual orientation.  So it is a conundrum no doubt.  The acting out pedophilia (incest, child molestation), must not be tolerated, as it has been throughout history up to and including my era of childhood.
     
    I couldn't be happier that this all has made us more aware of crimes against children. 
     
    But I am still without all the answers for the devastated families who care about their children.  Other than let the justice system do it's job: and focus more on healing, and healing your family member who was targeted. 
     
    Whatever we do, let's SPEAK UP if we know it is going on in our own lives.  
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    besides, you're doing a fine job of speaking for yourself :-)
  • javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
    I think I'm back to my original comment :

    You can both bite my ass as far as I'm concerned.

    First off, Speaking, I didn't hoodwink you into anything. I made the mistake of commenting on Trav's pedophilia post. I'll do myself a favor and not make that mistake again.

    Second, I could give two shits about what you think of me, my morals, my 'credibility' or my stance on homosexuals and pedophiles. I have been consistent and I have been honest. As far as I'm concerned, you don't see the forest through the trees and I really thought you did. I was wrong. You got me, I was wrong about you... So again, I won't make that mistake a second time.

    You kids have fun now.
  • travelr712 said on May 18, 2009....
    aww, don't go away mad jd.
  • speaking_up said on May 18, 2009....
    @Java...You put out an alarmist comment about a proposed bill...one I had heard about here and there, but really no specifics.  You made it specific and I fell for it and added it to my blog.  I'm pissed.  You have no reason to be mad...but I do.  But mostly I am mad at myself for not looking closer first.
     
    Anyway, this conversation is enlightening in many ways for me.  It brings up an excellent point concerning pedophilia, and there are some interesting view in here...and, I am still thinking about curmud's question asking if would we call it a hate crime if it involved a black against asian, or vice versa? 
     
    We have a long way to go for total civilized and fair justice for all.
     
    And,
     
    "As far as I'm concerned, you don't see the forest through the trees and I really thought you did."
     
    Maybe not.  But I can see the tree in the forest and sometimes we need to look closer at things to make rational, intelligent decisions. 
     
    And anyway, I will not agree with everything you say, and you will not agree with everything I say...that does not mean we have to become enemies over it.  I prefer not to be enemies, anyway.
     
    That doesn't mean I'll compromise my values in comments.  It's not personal.
     
    : )
  • curmudgeon said on May 19, 2009....
    travler - if there are indeed laws that apply only to women, minorities, CEOs, etc - why not have laws banning gay marriage and sentencing pedophiles to death? If it is appropriate to enact laws singling certain people out, why not single others out? The only thing needed is political will. This kind of reasoning is plainly silly.

    Either the law treats everyone equal based on citizenship or we have separate systems of justice for every aggrieved minority - which actually includes everyone if we re-categorize whites according to their geographic heritage - Danish-American, Swedish-American, German-American etc.

    As for muzzling preachers with whom you disagree politically - the same restrictions on expression will apply to people you do agree with - unless of course your reasoning on freedom of expression is as politically biased and hypocritical as your reasoning on hate crimes law.
  • travelr712 said on May 19, 2009....
    well said curm. and of course, you're right. either a 'liberal', or a 'conservative' viewpoint can have the same effect.
  • speaking_up said on May 20, 2009....
    welcome back curmud...i thought you were upset there wasn't a law to protect asians from black or blacks from asians.  I know these groups are often at odds, although I don't know why.
  • curmudgeon said on May 20, 2009....
    No, just got a little busy.

    Racism is, sadly, endemic among all people. It's a horrid myth that only whites can be racist simply because they happen to be the dominant race in this country. I don't want special laws. I just want everyone to be treated equally under existing law. To legislate based on skin color pretty much perpetuates the notion that all people are not in fact created equal, and I resent the notion that, under the law, my actions are treated as somehow more or less offensive than someone else engaged in the exact same act simply because of my skin color.
  • speaking_up said on May 20, 2009....
    It's not, curmud, under the proposed legislation.  All it does is allow prosecutors the money to prosecute for crimes not normally dealt with - because of community or justice discrimination.
     
    Back in the day...yesterday, a person, who cares what race, assaults a muslim in america for no reason other than the fact he is from the middle east, and muslim.  He is not prosecuted because the right-wing fundementalist republican district attorney, who is voted into his position, would not have the job again if he prosecuted.
     
    Happens all the time, every day,
     
    Now there is more money available for the justice system.
     
    How that will help that muslim guy...I dunno.
     
    Read the legislation, if you can interpret it to see minorities getting a better deal than everyone else, please point it out to me.
  • speaking_up said on May 20, 2009....
    You know, what I am failing to understand by many voters, is that they do not take responsibility for the people in office.  I don't care at what level.  I often hear a lot of bitching and moaning of not fair this, and not fair that...but the bottom line is WE, AS A PEOPLE, ARE THE DECIDERS.  WE, AS A PEOPLE, ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
     
    So when it comes to topics like torture, or war crimes, or criminal activity performed by people WE vote in, we need to wonder not about these guys, but us.  I think that is why there is so much debate going on...some of us want to change the status quo and try to sway votes with logic and reason, others want to scream themselves into oblivian and hope someone hears them, and still others just continute to stick their fingers in their ears and go NANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!
     
    What type of mover and shaker are you?
     
     
     
     

Comment on "A Law To Protect Pedofiles"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."...

Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.

...
Oooh, Sunday was a red letter day!...