1100 Earthquakes in California from 09/23 to 09/30

Boy, talk about yellow journamism.

CA Senate Bill 1234 was signed into law Sept 22nd. The story here is dated Sept 30. Must have been a slow news day.

Also, the story's details about SB1234 are incorrect. The bill does not define bible quotes or quoting scripture regarding homosexuality as hate speech (actually, it makes the provision that excercising of free speech itself is not to be construed as being limited by the bill).

Existing CA law already provides that no person shall oppress any other person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the CA or US Constitution because of the other person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation (punishable by up to 1yr imprisonment, $5,000 fine, or both). The bill recently signed provide that such conduct that also violates any other provision of law may only be punished once (as specified).

As far as hate crimes, this bill defines the term (the term has been used elsewhere, but has not been adequately defined, or has been given multiple definitions). It defines a "hate crime" as a criminal act committedbecause of the victim's disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation (defined to include crimes committed against heterosexuals as well).

The bill makes the provision that a crime upon prolife groups can be a hate crime, or that a crime upon Christian churches and groups can be a hate crime.

I guess including that part of the bill in the story cited in the OP would have messed with the issue

 

I read not long ago that actually there is no increase in earthquakes since earthquakes started being measured more scientifically. It seems like more because we now have more sensitive equipment that can catch every little tremor. There are always tremors and small earthquakes going on somwhere in the world at pretty much all times.

 

That will be a comforting thought as the earth opens up beneath your feet to swallow you, wont it?

On the hate crime bill, though... I think there is something really wrong with Americans. Why should the motive behind the crime change the penalty? And who are we to think we can discern the hearts of men? Should we define love crimes next, and maybe lighten the sentencing for them a bit? Can you hear the defense, 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client may have brutally stabbed this man to death, but he did not hate this man...' Absurd.

 

"That will be a comforting thought as the earth opens up beneath your feet to swallow you, wont it?"

Well, I don't live in the California-Nevada area. Anyway, that wasn't the point -- the point was that people are always saying earthquakes have increased.

I tend to agree with you on the hate crime issue.

 

"I really looooove money, your honor, so can I just get community service?"

 

That will be a comforting thought as the earth opens up beneath your feet to swallow you, wont it?

On the hate crime bill, though... I think there is something really wrong with Americans. Why should the motive behind the crime change the penalty? And who are we to think we can discern the hearts of men? Should we define love crimes next, and maybe lighten the sentencing for them a bit? Can you hear the defense, 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client may have brutally stabbed this man to death, but he did not hate this man...' Absurd. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, one of the reasons we have gotten into the situation with hate crimes is that law enforcement has a history of not prosecuting crimes committed against certain groups of persons and/or prosecuting them less vigorously. In an ideal world, that would never happen, but it does. Granted, what that means is a more even hand in prosecuting crimes vigorously, but in the real world, it just does not happen.

For example, same sex rape. Same sex rape is almost NEVER prosecuted because when it gets reported the assumption is that the person reporting it "really 'wanted' it," particularly if that person is male. We just had a case of that a few years ago on a local college campus in a town I worked in. The guy was beaten up very badly. Rape is rape, but the rape charge was not pursued vigorously by the campus police and it took the campus threatening to use hate crimes legislation against the men that did it to get their attention. Eventually, the perps were caught and prosecuted for a hate crime (assault against a person because of sexual orientation) and rape, and it was done because the perp. had a history of violence but had never been put away. Using BOTH charges and convicting of BOTH put him off the streets for longer than he would have on the rape charge alone, which, given his history, he certainly deserved. It sent a message that violent crimes against gays and ANYBODY would not be tolerated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, when, in the past that had not been the case.


Domestic violence is another issue. DV is DV, but it's not always reported or prosecuted as it should be. Having hate crimes legislation in place gives women who are victims of DV added incentive to report it and prosecutors an additional arrow in their quivers to prosecute men with histories of DV or other violent crimes. Therefore, he can be prosecuted for assault AND for a hate crime, namely an assault on a female because she is female (male-female DV is usually attributed to plain old fashioned mysogeny), so he can be put away for a longer time if convicted of both crimes or for the crime with the stiffest penality if only one is pursued.

 

Sounds like the answer would be to make it a crime to not prosecute a crime properly. To say that we need to enact stiffer penalties for people who do something out of hate, because it is hard to prosecute certain crimes against certain people... we are saying that the ones who do get prosecuted need to pay for the rest of them who didn't??