Hate crimes bill passes out of committee, wingnuts pass out with fright
By David Neiwert Saturday Apr 25, 2009 12:00pm
We're finally making progress on passing a federal hate-crimes bill: On Thursday, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.
Sure enough, as Kyle at RightWingWatch predicted, the right-wing freakout has begun. Unsurprisingly, Glenn Beck is already leading the way.
He invited on wingnut talk-show host Sandi Rios, who promptly declared hate crimes "thought crimes" (uh-huh, right). She also attacked Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, who was defending the bill from Republican attempts to nullify it by adding categories or victims by claiming:
Rios: Well, she's saying that anybody that's killed or harmed is not a real victim -- unless they're homosexual or gay or Jewish. Then they're real victims. So you can murder more severely if they happen to homosexual or Jewish. It makes no sense.
Beck: Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? If you kill someone, you should go to jail!
Well, as I've explained previously, hate-crimes laws in fact do offer equal protection under the law:
This ... is precisely how the laws work: they are intended to protect everyone equally from these kinds of crimes. Everyone, after all, has religious beliefs of one kind or another; we all have a race, a gender, an ethnicity, a sexual orientation. A quick look at the FBI's annual bias-crime statistics bears this out; anti-white bias crimes are the second-largest category of racial crimes, and anti-Christian crimes constitute the second-largest in the religion category. If the laws were written as McGough suggests, they couldn't possibly pass the Constitution's equal-protection muster; yet these laws have.
Bias-crime laws aren't about "special categories" of victims; in fact, the victim's actual ethnic or sexual status is of secondary importance -- what matters is the motivation of the perpetrator. This is why a gay-bashing assault against a person mistaken for being gay is still a bias crime.
As for why this law is important to pass, read more here.
Login or Register to post comments.
No problem, Glen. You're a simpleton. However, I still prefer "clown" as being the best way to describe you.
.
I know that I use it on all of them, but does seem to apply.
Hey, this is fun.
Beck is pathetic ... who still needs his diapers changed.
But Oh really stole my thunder. YUP you are a simpleton.
And why are all Republic women so ugly? And I don't mean just physically ugly, but butt ugly through an through/
Stop trying to oppress others wingnuts and perhaps such "overkill" laws won't be necessary.
And yes Beck. You are a simpleton. One can look in his crazy eyes and tell there are one too few logs on the fire.
This bitch is the type that would send her son to straight camp if he came out.
I'd camp under a bridge before I'd live under her roof.
I'm not going to read Beck's take on this, cuz he's a retard. But I do think creating special classes of victims is unnecessary (except for children and the physically disabled). Something about equal treatment under law. I really don't like the idea of having a 2-tier justice system.
I pretty much agree with you. I don't see why the specific motive for a crime makes the crime deserving of a a special punishment. Is Joe beating me up to take my wallet somehow inherently better than Joe beating me up because I'm gay? I've still been beaten up.
One of my biggest worries about hate crimes legislation is that it tends to get applied against the minorities it was intended to protect. Here in Milwaukee they passed a hate crimes bill for racial crimes, and the first (and I think only) time it was invoked, it was used against a couple of black kids who harassed a white kid on a bus, which was the opposite of the stated intention of the law when it was passed.
I don't know. Sounds like it may have been applied appropriately. If it's only one way than one could make the case it creates a special class but if 2 black kids are beating up a white kid because he's white it's really the same thing and there is a hate crime law it should be applied both ways othewise it is discriminatory.
Crimes against specific classes of people -- because of their membership in that class -- are crimes against civil society as a whole, and not just an individual. Thus, attacking someone of the Jewish faith simply because they are Jewish is, and should be, considered a graver crime than simply attack that same person for other reasons. Religion, BTW, is already a protected class -- and I don't recall ever seeing an atheist prosecuted for a thought crime against a Christian.
... just leave the door open for challenges regarding equal protection under the law later on. If something is a crime, it's a crime because of what was done, not because of the identity of whoever it was done to.
If the motivation behind the crime is rooted in hatred for a particular group. Put another way, if a crime was committed against an individual because of a predudice against a group to which he belongs, it is a crime against more than the individual but against that social or racial population itself.
This distinguishes it from a crime against any random person and has much wider societal ramifications.
...but the potential for unintended consequences here is huge.
And there are always unintended consequences.
Just because the Democratic party is pushing it, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
... and a lawyer friend of mine, who used to do a lot of work for the ACLU, explained to me where these legislations were coming from.
The justice system deals with crime as a "three part" play: the outcome of the crime, the intention/motivation behind the crime, and the role of the justice system in lieu of the combination of both.
For example, a person killed in a robbery... and a gay man beaten to death. Well, the outcome of both crimes are the same: two dead persons. However, the motivation behind each crime is very very different: an economically-motivated killing, like the one in the robbery, does not have the same context than a couple of hateful assholes who killed a gay man just because.
Probably this does not affect the sentencing, but we need to have the correct context in order to deal with the magnitude of the crime better. Furthermore, allowing the correct context to be defined... it further allows the state to prosecute people who would have been behind the hate crime. Which it is a pretty powerful and useful aspect.
This does not create a 2-tier legal system, it just allows the legal system to deal with all the nuances of crime. Things are not black and white, but the proverbial shade of gray.
I don't know if I was able to explain it so that it makes sense. But it was quite an eye opener when I heard it from a person involved in the legal system.
I could argue that someone being robbed and killed is also a hate crime because the crime was motivated by a difference in economic classes (have vs. have not). You can play the grouping game all day long and that's the problem with trying to define what constitutes a hate crime.
Food for thought: A group of bullies beats the snot out of the school honor student because he is smart and popular. All involved are the same race and religion. Is this a hate crime too?
has what some people consider a poorly chosen title or naming, it does not affect the validity and merit of the spirit of that legislation... in any way, shape, or form.
I'll give Beck a badge for narcisism. After all he makes his living on hate, and he appears to live and breath hate. When he's not consumed with fear, he's consumed with hate.
Why would he not fear and hate a Hate Crimes Bill? Hehe.
I really hate to say this but I agree with Beck. It does not matter what your motivation,in fact at a trial the state does not have to prove motive it just helps to put things in perspective; if you commit a crime you should go to jail,period. Everywhere in the country different groups being targeted, and in Hawaii the military is very often the target, not gays, not Jews, the military; unless you live there you would not know this.
is right twice a day.
Although in Beck's case, this might just be the one and only time.
in order to provide the correct context for the sentencing (or lack there of).
Justice is not an aspect of humanity that we want to reduce in its complexity just because idiots like Beck can't deal with the nuances of the human experience.
Remember these were the same people who less than a century ago could not "understand" why minorities and women were making such a fuss... since they had it "good enough."
Beware of those who long for simplicity after they have help made our lives a complex mess. As their longing for "reduction" is not based on our common interests, but on the fact that simplicity is the only way they can get away with their crimes.
GOC - I think they still get their due punishment for no-name murders, but they get bonus points for the criminal premeditation, similar to how some murder charges are compounded if you murder a police officer.
Simply untrue. Motivation and intent -- the Mens rea, or state of mind of the perpetrator -- has always been a feature of criminal law. It's the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter, for instance.
Example: Two men in their thirties commit an identical crime: They murder their mothers by smothering them to death. In the case of the first man, he's acting on a request from an aging woman who is in such intense pain that she's asked him to end her misery. In the second, he's smothered her because she was wealthy and he wanted inherit her money and the insurance.
Two crimes with identical outcomes. The difference in the two is motive. The key difference in the judicial outcome is in the sentencing.
Well, that's exactly how bias-crime laws work: they are essentially sentence-enhancement laws.
Acting on the request of the mother should not be a crime.
I agree in general, but portions of your explanation sounds like sentencing guidelines which I tend to be against.
That's where some white kid with the expensive snow gets a light sentence, but a black kid with crack gets a harder sentence because the guidelines make crack the greater offense.
One could also compare it to the third strike law, where the third crime is relatively minor, stealing a slice of pizza, but the perp is put away for life because it's his third strike.
Motivation is key to several kinds of crimes--when we talk about the difference between 1st degree murder and 3rd degree murder (manslaughter), we are describing "state of mind" and motivation. I see nothing wrong, and a lot right, with a society saying, "We don't approve of assault, but if you commit aggravated assault on someone because you think you are hitting a [fill in the blank], then we are going to tack an extra 5 years on."
In order for your point to be valid, you would have to acknowledge that a crime against a member of the military would be treated the same as a crime committed against a gay person. If the hate motivating the crime were not taken into consideration, the chances are overwhelming that a jury would give a stiffer sentence to the person commiting the crime against the service person.
In delineating the hate that motivates the crime the gravity of the implications against society aa a whole are defined; a good thing to my mind.
Motivation matters enormously in criminal law. Motivation is the difference between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder.
on the 'read more here' page covering the human (that page mentions Germany, I'm reading Sacred Games which references the same thing concerning different groups moving into Mumbai) trait of the formerly dominant group raging against newcomers.. in the case of GLBT folks, we've always been here (Transgendered people even though not nearly as many and certainly intersexed people) but we've been silenced and forced to pass. Just being honestly who we are is such a revolutionary act, amazing really. The human animal is truely a special work.. other animals play the same group game and don't even try to get over it.
But back to the pathetic Beck piece.. why the hell did Sandy Rios pick out Jewish people to group with GLBT and leave out others? And Beck's thing about each of us should have our own group identity protected (like his is which? yeah I know ignorant but the rest?).. like all I am is gay, or Hindu, or Hillbilly or whatever. We're all multi-faceted unique beings.. anyone who is not marginal is not to be trusted because they're phony about all they really are.
Beck claims that if he witnessed a trans-gender person being harassed he would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with that person.
That's pretty near impossible for Beck considering he would probably be the harrasser.
"Call me a simpleton," says Mighty Mouth. No prob, Glen, we knew that already, just glad to hear you admit it.
but then he'd walk away with the person who was doing the harrassing, and do some version of: 'Hey, it's not even worth it... they're just trying to get attention... get mad at someone who's actually sane."
And would then slap them on the back/ share a chuckle, etc.
.
The irony of all ironies...
... Hatin' on the Hate Crimes bill.
.
"...we all have a race, a gender, an ethnicity, a sexual orientation. A quick look at the FBI's annual bias-crime statistics bears this out; anti-white bias..."
i'm still not quite sure i buy into all hate crime legislation. some of it tends to be not very well written.
take the above quote for example. if everyone has an ethnicity, why are "whites" so often considered a monolithic race? are celts = french = russian = poles = saxons = etc....?
to a hater, that's very possible.. speaking of monolithic race, biologists report that race is a human construction, it does not exist in biology.. there's only the human race..
and celts = french = russian = poles = saxons = etc....? is really about ethnicity which is even less real than race. I'd say the same thing about gender. There is only an infinitely varied spectrum or is it spiral or the unspeakable. Anti Hate crimes legislation is a conundrum, I don't believe it is appropriate really though actually is is..
whiteness is not an ethnicity, it is a membership in the hegemonic power order...
which is still, for the most part, and 'thePrez' notwithstanding (one reason Obama was successful is that he is NOT thought to be of the same class as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson) true.
All "whites" recognized as such (mexicans, while not 'negroid' or 'asian,' are also not usually classed as "whites" because of their mestizo heritage) are beneficiaries of racist practices, no matter their 'nationality'...
Many groups priviledge lighter color, 'scientific racism' had their whole hierarchy thing going with the Nordics at the top, everyone arranged by the degree of their melanin.. Many South Asians advertise their skin shades in their matrimonial postings, plenty of other examples in other groups and 'races'.. heterosexuality is also priviledged most places, as is Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Budhism etc etc depending on the local..
and as you say it's all about power.. groups in opposition will often join to fight a new group.. there was the 'joke' during Viet Nam era when the Sarg said that 'you blacks and you whites get together and kill them yellas'
"whiteness is not an ethnicity, it is a membership in the hegemonic power order..."
is that right...then riddle me this; why did my family when they fled the havok of WWI in coming to settle in rural vermont experience extreme bigotry and scorn from the "white yankees" even though their skin colors were the same?
"hegemonic power order" ....urrrr, no. i could tell you stories of harrassment that would stand the hairs on your neck.
We make necessary distinctions when assaying the severity of crimes, based on intention and when it was formed.
Thus 'premeditated' murder is punished more severely than "accidental murder" or "homicide."
I see no particular difference between having those classes of crimes and stipulating that 'known bias' or the like exaggerates the seriousness of hate crimes...
Look at the people Glenn Becks inspires. White Supremacists, Tea-baggers (a more retarded name I couldn't think of), Right Wing loonies, and the just plain hate-filled mental deficients.
A hate crime law would put his followers under the microscope. It would make Beck's followers afraid to act in the way they desire most.... which is in a hateful manner.
There's also the very good chance that he could be a target for inspiring hate crimes.
That's why Beck is wetting his panties.
Remember, that the GOP is about Hate, Fear, and Greed, not necessarily in that order. This law would be another wound to the right wing party.
If it does that, then I'm all for it.
why isn't he promoting the repeal of hate crime legislation that protects whites and religious people?
Especially religion because unlke being gay, no one is born a Catholic or a Christian.
Plenty of people are born Jewish.
But not jonas goldbooger.
His father was Jewish, not his mother
Which is the requisite to be born Jewish in a mixed religion marriage.
Your headline makes me hungry for some Chef Boyardee
Almost.
There is not much worse in this world than agreeing with likes of Ms. Rios. As a gay male, I have struggled with the concept of "hate crimes" and have come to the conclusion that what we are really talking about is the criminalization of thought. "Hate" is a "motive" for committing the crime, but not a crime in itself.
Honestly, we on the left are almost as bad as those on the right for wanting to criminalize everything.
OMG Thank you.
I remember in the early 60s when the public accomodations law was passed that said someone could not be refused service because of their race, ethnicity, religion etc. At the time many people were saying that the government shouldn't be able to tell someone who they could serve.. fifty years later, most folks agree with the law or at least have come to accept it, at least for the original protected classes. Black people were the newly protected class then. I look at the hate crimes laws as more of a statement of public values than anything. You have creeps like Beck mystifying, winking and insinuating all kinds of trash and sometimes official public statements as to the values of this society are appropriate.
Just this Friday, I was watching on Bill Moyer's Journal(?) about a particular civil rights figure. They showed a clip of a Southernor saying Civil Rights laws violated State's rights, and was essentially about giving rights to as I paraphrase negroes, who are known for not being as smart, as clean and more criminally inclined than whites.
I thought it interesting, becuase it's the same argument conservatives use today, but in different, less direct terminology. He didn't seem to realize that laws helping the "negroes" get educated and rise up the economic stratas, might make such faults he listed things of the past.
what you think it means.
If as a gay male you can't comprehend the nuances that exist between a gay person being killed for being gay, vs. the same gay person being killed in a robbery (for example). I find that a tad disconcerting...
perhaps?
There's a disconcerting group. This reminds me of that.
What about Repukable.. that's cute, comfortable and corporate..
they're thugs
cloyingly
Wow, I voice an opinion that isn't kosher with others and I am branded a "Log Cabin Thug"?
Want to know why there is not such thing as a "gay agenda", have you ever found two gay people who can agree on anything, let alone an overall "agenda"?
I guess I should just go back into the closet and keep my views to myself? Or maybe polite discourse is the way to solve some of these issues.
Try saying something that isn't positively glowing about Obama!!! I dare you.
(my little "snark")
What you are describing is motive, not a crime in itself. Both people are dead, but because of different motives.
You are focusing on the outcome, and labeling that the crime. Which it is not.
That is why we distinguish between involuntary manslaughter, first degree murder, or a conspiracy to assassinate for example.
So, if I kill a person I am not committing a crime? That is the outcome, correct?
What you are talking about is circumstances, not motive.
or grow the capacity to recognize when you are wrong, instead of continuing digging deeper.
And Nope, the death is still the outcome... not the crime as a whole. You could have killed the person and still not have committed a crime.
And for the nth time, I was referring to motive, period. hich is not necessarily the same as circumstances (and viceversa).
if the perpetrator of the crime gets caught, and sentenced equally what does it matter?
Hate crimes have got to be the worst kind. Look what buschCo is doing. It's all criminal, and it's all hate based. They just use fear to prepare people to hate.
This is not legislating thought, it's punishing crimes for aggravated circumstances.
Just like if you kill a police officer, kill someone to cash out an insurance policy, during a robbery, during a sexual assault, while trying to cover up another crime, etc.
This isn't appeasement of teh gay, or of minorities... it's simply acknowledging that a person that would kill/assault or cause grave bodily injury simply based off sexual orientation, is someone that it is that much more of a priority to keep away from the general public.
If describing a crime as one motivated by hate as means to enhance punishment, then yes, I agree with that. I do not agree with special laws creating a new class of crime, though, crimes based on thought.
Create the laws that specifically state that hate be considered a motivation in regards to punishment upon conviction, but don't create laws criminalizing thought.
Oh, for fuck's sake. No force on this planet can criminalize hate anyone else for whatever reason imaginable. You're being deliberately dumb.
If there is proof the motive for a crime was hate-based a more severe punishment is due.
It's no different than the laws regarding cop killing. More severe punishment (meant as a deterrent).
I'm not American, and don't really know your laws, so I'll butt out now.
Then you must support this bill -- it enhances punishments for criminals who act to intimidate entire classes of people. That is the essence of a hate crime law.
Mushy-headed libertarians and liberals (not to mention conservatives) who see bias-crime laws as creating "thought crimes" -- a concern for which, in over two decades of having these laws on the books, there is scant evidence -- seem to be wringing their hands over a rather abstract notion of freedom, while losing sight of the hard reality that bias-crime laws are about protecting the freedoms of millions of Americans. Maybe that's because these critics see the only threat to our freedoms as emanating from government. But over the history of our country, there have been notable examples in which people's freedoms were taken away by the acts of their fellow citizens -- the "lynching era" of 1880-1930 being the most prominent. Today's bias-crime laws are the direct descendants of the anti-lynching laws that were never passed at the height of this era, based largely on arguments similar to those raised against bias-crime laws -- a failure for which the Senate recently apologized.
The legacy of lynching remains with us today in the form of hate crimes -- whose purpose, once again, is to oppress and eliminate targeted minorities. Hate crimes have the fully intended effect of driving away and deterring the presence of any kind of hated minority -- racial, religious, or sexual. They are essentially acts of terrorism directed at entire communities of people, and they are message crimes: "Keep out." And they damage both the fabric of our communities and the democratic underpinnings of a free society. Most of all, they create what Yale's Donald Green calls "a massive dead-weight loss of freedom" for all Americans, particularly minorities.
Bias-crime laws aren't merely about "affirming the equality of all people": they're about preserving very real, basic freedoms -- freedom of association, freedom of travel, the freedom to live where we choose, and most of all the freedom from fear -- for every American. The only "freedom" upon which they impinge is that of violent yahoos to threaten and intimidate and take away the freedom of others. Is that the kind of freedom you wish to protect?
Ironic that the conservaturds so fearful of "thought-crimes" see no problem with the use and abuse of NSL's at book stores and libraries.
I should also mention that Phil Donohue, in his last year, had a show about Houston cops cracking down on gay bashers in a neighborhood known for being gay. They put plainclothes cops on the streets. They were instructed to act normal, no mincing, flaming, hand holding etc. They would be targeted by gay bashers only because they were in the neighborhood, and they would then turn around and arrest the more violent of the bashers.
these laws are protecting everyone who might find themselves in a "wrong" neighborhood.
thought crimes have ever been in a neighborhood where they knew they weren't welcome.
I have been to Oildale once, a neighborhood near Bakersfield. There are a lot of neo-Nazis and other violent racists there. Every Juneteenth, for example, they attack African-Americans they happen to encounter.
I was very nervous and anxious the entire time, and was so glad to get out of there, because I knew they didn't like Hispanics either.
In Texas, if you don't like or follow football, you're gay. So I'm often thought of that way. I'm also considered a tad too passive, with little interest in acting macho, so that doesn't help.
So such laws protect me to.
I bet if more people thought carefully, they could find an area where these laws protect them as well.
Anna and ybs:
Know exactly what you mean.
No not me David. Thats not the freedom I would want to protect. You make a very good point.
"Everyone, after all, has religious beliefs of one kind or another..."
Not true. At all.
That's still a category of religious belief, and one that some species of bigots may try to attack you for.
and I don't recall ever seeing an atheist prosecuted for a thought crime against a Christian.<<<
That's because we don't beat you up, we laugh at you for your silly belief in magical beings.
I "hate" this PC bullshit.
.
When you say ""hate"," Do you mean to be quoting someone who said that word at sometime? If so, who?
Or do you mean 'hate' as in not really hate, but just the opposite? Like when I say "FOX 'News'," I put the single quotes at the beginning and end of the word 'News,' because it's not really any kind of news at all. And when I did the same is the preceding sentence, I did it to indicate it was an example.
See what I mean?
Remember what president McCain said - Hate! Hate! Hate!
Oh wait, it was - Fight! Fight! fight! He'd already covered hate earlier in the show.
I am not big on political correctness. Call me a fag, call me a queer, call me a butt pirate, call me whatever as long as one does so without malice.
To me, political correctness creates victims where there were no victims before and stifles meaningful debate. Look at the "political correctness" that Secretary Napolitano is having to deal with from the right-wingers.
Malice is what makes terminology hateful, without malice, I don't give a shit.
How about rump ranger?
Haven't heard that one yet. I was trying to remember all of the terms Jamie used in "A Beautiful Thing" when asked by his mom's boyfriend what "he did now" to describe what he was.
Hi Yo...Tonto...Awaaay!!!
Whatever, Nancy.
Love,
Mary
Something two fags agreed on. Hey hey.
I'm happy to see the nuanced discussion in these comments. We all oppose hate crimes, of course, but see the danger in criminalizing thought ... even while acknowledging that "premeditated murder" is appropriately treated diffently than a crime of passion. The treatment of hate crime doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker.
At the end of this clip Beck says everyone should be labeled as a part of a hated group so there wouldn't be a "spcial class of people."
Most rational people would agree with that goal. I would have liked to hear his answer to a reply like this: "Then I'm sure you agree the state should not discriminate between straights and gays when it issues marriage licenses."
Who has been the "special class of people" for hundreds of years? It's been us straight white males.
Arrrrrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!
Don't you people bother to read the post?!!!!!
Bias-crime laws do not create special classes of people.
They are purely about the biased motives of the perpetrator.
The categories of bias -- race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender -- in bias-crime laws are universal categories that include every human being in the USA.
I find some of the arguments against "hate crime" legislation, as being a covert attempt at blaming the victim.
Yes, some of the arguments against the criminalization of thought to tend to blame the "victim". Those arguments don't make the criminalization of thought any more palatable though.
Nix the "criminalization of thought" meme, or else you're going to look like even more of a tool.
Should I just mimic what everyone else has said in support of "hate crimes" legislation or should I be allowed to have my difference of opinion?
It is my belief that creating a special category of "hate crimes" criminalizes thought. I have stated my reasons for it and there will be those who disagree, just as you do. That doesn't make you any more of a tool of the "left" than my views do me.
Have whatever "belief" you bloody well please, but if you can't justify it, you're going to be called on it. You're simply wrong, son. Admit it and move on.
Oops, I read you wrong (above). It's not about criminalizing thought. That's just silly.
Now, I'm totally confused and thus leaving.
Does it "criminalize thought" to put people away for a longer sentence for premeditated murder than for manslaughter? Because once again, the difference in those crimes is the state of mind of the perpetrator -- his thoughts.
You are wanting to create a separate crime based on "hate", instead of using the motivations of the person to commit the crime for the purposes of punishment during the punishment phase.
Premeditated murder is just murder planned out. Doesn't matter if the person chose to murder the person for greed, sexual orientation, race or just for kicks. The person killed the other after making plans to do so.
I hope you nom de guerre refers to the bird who likes to haul his own ashes
And not justice in Phoenix Arizona.
My moniker means that I live in Phoenix and that I am for equal justice for all. Where does does the road of "hate crimes" end? Do we start charging people who burn books for committing a hate crime? How about those who burn the American Flag?
.
So you're a flag hag?
are flags.
Ironically, Phoenix Justice is comparing the people protected by hate crimes legislation to inanimate objects. And yet, part of the environment someone would have that would enable to commit a violent hate/bias crime is if they don't see the victim as human.
Specially when dealing in a forum with anonymity, these slips are a far easier way of figuring out who we are dealing with... than just by taking whatever they claim to be at face value.
;-)
Although pointing out the the difference between animate and inantimate nature of the comments, one cannot read too much further into the comment.
Afterall, for nearly 20 years republicans have been running on flag burning laws.
that by being unable to distinguish the fact that not all crimes are the same, and thus it makes little sense to apply an egalitarian rule in how we deal with crime. That you are inadvertently, sort of making the criminals the victims.
And I say that giving you the full benefit of the doubt.
Part of what's at issue here is the name, "Hate Crime."
This is not a new category of crime, merely procerdural and punishment changes.
I'm not sure who gave this the name Hate Crime, but it's reminiscent of how those who opposed Estate Taxes changed the name to Death Taxes.
To me it puts it into the context of violating someone's civil rights.
Is it your belief that every criminal act should be punished by the exact same amount of jail time?
That NO thought should be given to the criminal's mind-set at the time of the crime?
The ENTIRE legal system essentially exists as a way of attempting to determine the aggravating circumstances of the crime, and to punish accordingly.
If you steal under a certain dollar amount of goods, it's a misdemeanor, if you steal over, it's a felony; if you steal while fighting off the clerk who's chasing you out the store, it's a stronger felony than that, if you steal while pointing a gun at the clerk who's chasing you and threatening to kill him, it's even more serious, if you actually shoot the clerk, etc etc. If he dies, etc.
Get where i'm going?
To a convenience store?
"If you steal under a certain dollar amount of goods, it's a misdemeanor, if you steal over, it's a felony; if you steal while fighting off the clerk who's chasing you out the store, it's a stronger felony than that, if you steal while pointing a gun at the clerk who's chasing you and threatening to kill him, it's even more serious, if you actually shoot the clerk, etc etc. If he dies, etc."
What you are talking about are actions, not thoughts or motivations. Those actions are what cause the person to be charged with different crimes.
The motivation of a person can be spelled out as to why they committed the particular crime and then used during sentencing as a mitigating factor, but the motivation itself is not a separate crime.
"criminalization of thought" indeed does not mean what you think it means.
Some crimes may seem to be random or motiveless unless people know something of the perps beliefs.
And any crime needs mens rea and concurrence along with the actus reus.
No, that's Arrrrrrrr matey!!!!!
Unless you're Charlie Brown getting a football snatched away.
Yes, I read the post, and I did not claim that bias crime laws create a special class of people - I attempted to respond to Glen Beck's assertion that they do.
David Neiwert said bias-crime laws "are purely about the biased motives of the perpetrator."
That's my point exactly. We all have biases; it's difficult to make some biases illegal. On the other hand, it's not very difficult to make actions illegal.
CONSERVATIVES LOSE FREEDOM TO GET THEIR HATE ON.
Are these two legal scholars also going to propose that no laws should exist for aggravated crimes? Such as, murdering a police officer...
I wanna hear Glenn Beck stand up for all the cop-killers out there who are serving so much more time than the person in the cell next to them who only killed someone in a bar fight. After all, Glenn, it's still murder, right? Why should the guy be punished worse just because the person he killed was wearing a badge on his chest?
Should someone who's motive is soley that he hates cops get more time than the murderer who killed other cops "just because? Are you going to tell the familey's of the cop that got murderd just "because" that his killer may get out way sooner?
that doesn't already have 'special circumstances' legislation [for killing an officer of the law] in place. Cop killing has been considered a hate crime forever. In states with the death penalty, it is used as an 'aggravating factor' in sentencing. Kill a regular guy defending his stuff, and it's 25-life. Kill a cop in identical circumstances (save for it's a cop, and he's defending someone else's junk), and it's a death penalty offence.
Your next straw man, please? Only make it harder, m'kay?
The legislation is written to protect all people in the United States from senseless acts of violence against them.
I would equate those who commit hate-crimes with domestic terrorists.
One thing the FAUX crowd hates about the hate crimes law is that it never seems to work in their favor, which clashes with their self-professed victim-hood.
Their justification is that it's inherently unfair.
And maybe not so deep down they know that their only appeal right now is to stoke hatred between groups. Remember the rallies for sarah palin?
They'll suggest that white are being discrimanted against. But hate is hate. If someone killed someone because they are white, that's a "hate-crime," period.
unless you're thinking of those thoughts led you to hurt or kill someone that you were thinking negatively about!
For those who are dragging the political correctness meme into this, you're welcome to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. asshole in your thought life if you want to be. What you're not welcome to do is physically harm or harrass someone because you're an asshole who's prejudiced against them.
You're not welcome to hurt me because I'm female, bisexual, disabled, and half-Hispanic. You're not welcome to attack ysb on account of his being Wiccae, you're not welcome to harass Uncle Joe McCarthy on account of his being Jewish, you're not welcome to harm or kill any of our white C & Lers, or our black C & Lers, or our Asian C & Lers, etc. etc or anyone else for that matter.
And no one is welcome to harm or kill you because you're (insert adjectives here).
Understand?
I'm of Picto-Celtic decent, and I reserve the right to dislike someone for any reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgzC-l_lmUU
However, I don't reserve the right to act on it.
Like the Supreme Court told the petitioner in McReynold's v the US (a polygamy case), you may have the right to believe whatever your want, but not to act upon those beliefs.
When people ask me about my pentagram, I just tell them that's because I support the Dallas Cowboys
Or the Texas Rangers.
;)
And I love Groundskeeper Willie, btw!
I recall that the Nazi's would storm hospitals and kill invalids and the disabled.
Making it all the more ironic they were defeated by the leadership of a disabled US president.
Too bad FDR was hiding it at the time.
going after someone they think is weak, only to discover the disabled are not what they thought they were... Sad stuff...
I believe that motive is not irrelevant. Motive, in fact, makes crimes unequal. Motive has been taken into consideration in prosecuting and punishing crimes and in sentencing hearings forever.
For example, stealing a loaf of bread as an act of shoplifting, or in order to harm a proprietor, or to feed a hungry child.
Murder is murder, and assault is assault, etc. but we do assign degrees of murder and assault (manslaughter to first degree for example) and dole out sentences based on the nature and, you bet, MOTIVE for the act.
This law and related laws simply codify into law degrees of action to be taken based on a particular motive. I happen to agree with this. I understand the objection to it (should other motives, such as "revenge" be codified into specific punishments?)
We tend to dole out the most strict punishments to "senseless" and particularly heinous crimes. This law codifies the idea that harming or killing a person simply because of who they ARE is a senseless and heinous crime. Yay for this law.
"In 1995, I didn't have anybody who trusted me. My doctor had given me six months to live. Eight months later, I was still drinking and my body was shutting down and I was in the fetal position after losing my family. So I went to AA and started to clean myself up, and I thought I had done a pretty good job. But there were things I really hadn't looked into. For instance, nobody in my family had ever talked about my mother's suicide. We had never discussed it as a family."
They admit that there are some who will treat gays and transgenders differently and that those people are wrong, but then argue that when those people murder a gay or transgender, it should be treated the same as a DUI or crime of passion.
There's no doubt that someone kills a lover in a jealous rage for different reasons than someone plans to murder their spouse to gain their insurance. Certainly, you don't treat all crimes the same.
just a bunch of lets hate whitey crap ! or crapola! take your pick!
When hate crimes first came about, the main goal was to protect a group of people from being terrorized. Back in the 60s African Americans were terrorized as a group. One African American hanging from a tree was a message to the rest of the African Americans, basically to terrorize this sector of the population.
Hate crimes against LGBT people are crimes that are meant to terrorize the whole LGBT community.
If the motive of the crime was robbery, it wouldn't make a difference if the victim was gay or straight. The crime wasn't an act of scaring a whole sector of the population. Now if a gang of thugs went out searching for a few queers to kill, that would be classified as hate crime, same would be if the thugs went after Jewish people of Baptists.
One other aspect is in many areas in the south, local police and sheriff officers would not do their job when an African American was murdered or beaten up, other law enforcement agencies would be allowed to investigate and prosecute. Also if the local police did do anything about the crime, say prosecute and find the perpetrator guilty and given a light sentence(6 weeks probation for murder) the hate crimes laws prevents that kind of garbage from happening as well.
Hate crimes since they are motivated by bias, or hate, if you will are essentially the perp making an example of victim in order to terrorize people from the victim's community, whether it is based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, etc.
I think many people don't think of gender violence as a form of a hate crime for instance, but even sexual street harrassment and some sexual assaults of women, for instance, is a way of terrorizing all women in the local population... As someone who's experienced that first hand, I know that has many of the same effects that other kinds of bias crimes have on the affected populations...
This also reminds me of a case here in Texas, where a homosexual was killed execution style in a park. The two killers were given 12 years by a judge, who said in open court, that the victim was, "Cruising for trouble."
*
this is why I have a hard time supporting them.
2005. 212,190 rapes reported nationally. 17,920 black girls raped. 194,270 white girls raped. In the cases where white girls were raped, 44.5% of the offenders were white, and 33.6% of the offenders were black. In the cases where black girls were raped, nearly 100% of the offenders - were black.
This means, that - in 2005 - 37,460 white women were raped by a black man. a few dozen black girls, were raped by a white man.
I could point to dozens of pornographic websites where the theme involves black men degrading or even raping, white women. arguably... there's a serious racist intention driving many of these violent crimes.
but we'll never see a hate crime legislation drafted, advocating harsher punishments for these cases.
hate crime laws are really some of the worst results of upper class white yuppies' "reverse racism". its probably best to let prosecutors do their job on a case-by-case basis, and to stop micromanaging them by legislation.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cur...
this post told us so much more about you than you can imagine.
rape is, in itself, a hate crime against a gender. you know?
it just - it just seems to me like hate crime legislation targets white heterosexual males. it ignores the possibility that blacks, hispanics, women, homosexuals... are just as capable of bigotry, and "hate-based" bigotry-driven crimes.
I have a hard time getting behind this kind of legislation because its mono-directional. and implemented in a melting pot society.
was completely wrong.
So what is exactly your point?
black peoples is evil
what a maroon
I think it would be looked at as a hate crime, what you are describing.
But as long as rape is considered a 'sex crime,' the victims will be considered 'a preference,' not a target of hate.
Please don't think I'm attacking you, just adding on to what you've written here:
Rape is usually very underreported, and I am quite sure that the number of black women raped in 2005 mentioned above probably just barely scratches the surface. I am a survivor of multiple assaults I never reported, for instance. So I may be absent from the statistics. There are a lot of invisible survivors.
There are a lot of reasons women don't report when they are raped or assaulted. Issues of race and class often figure in. Many women of color are treated poorly by LE, and are often accused of lying. When it comes to reporting, it is easy to feel like David going up against Goliath and feeling like there is no point. One my perpetrators I've felt I can never report, partly because I am poor/working class, am mixed-race, and he is white, middle-class, and from an otherwise squeaky clean Mormon family.
So there may be many more black women who have been raped by white men who didn't report because they felt like David up against Goliath. In fact, I am sure of it.
I am part Native American, and Native women are overwhelmingly raped by white men. Yet we are disbelieved by LE.
So anyway, those stats are just a fraction of the information needed to figure out the big picture.
To those so fearful of "hate crimes."
Was Michael Richards jailed?
Was he even fined?
No, because he committed no crime.
However, I wonder how often he's hired to perform now? But that's a business decision by businessmen.
And even if black men raped black women, putting aside the possibility of self-hate for his own race, couldn't he just hate women?
And it's doubtful he could raise a defense in court by saying she was asking for it by the way she was dressed.
motivated by "hate" ?
assault, murder, rape. whats the motivation? hatred. granted, each cases' hatred is a unique sort of hatred, but - why further complicate an already emotional and complex trial ... with ambiguous, mono-directional, hands-off legislation?
because lets face it. every one of us advocating hate crimes... will not be intimately involved in every violent crime trial in 2009 and 2010. why should we allow ourselves then to proactively meddle in trials in 2010, that we won't even be aware of, by advocating brief, blanket-statement legislation?
prosecutors, and criminal defense attorneys, are in the positions they're in, because of their knowledge and expertise. very very few of us posting on this board (including me) are educated or adept in these matters.
so it makes no sense to me for us to be meddling in these matters.
I denounce hate crime legislation for the very same reasons I denounce "3 strikes you're out" legislation.
People can kill with indifference, and rob for whatever the person possesses. If a murder occurs it could be because something went wrong during the course of a robbery, and to the robber the murder seems like self defense.
And like any other crime, a hate crime will have elements that will have to be proven. One way it's different than the 3rd strike laws is that it's a charge not a set punishment. If proven maybe it could add years to the sentence, like a robbery committed with a gun, even if the trigger is never pulled, but in and of itself it would only be part of the overall charge.
bigoted criminals are of every race, class and creed.
bigoted prosecutors and judges are of every race, class and creed.
at the end of the day, the professionals responsible for prosecution, defense, and sentencing are better educated than you or I.
I cannot advocate blanket statement hate crime legislation ... passed by ill-informed constituents ... for the same reasons I cannot advocated "3 strikes you're out" or other "tough on crime" GOP-backed legislation.
its best to let the professionals do their job and stick to voting on laws we the people can better wrap our heads around.
the 3 branches of government are executive, legislative, and judiciary.
hate crime legislation ... just like "tough on crime" legislation ... inhibits the judiciary branch from doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, on a case by case basis.
this kind of legislation, by design, only ensures that the legislative branch inhibits the judiciary branch. I just think its out of bounds.
Login or Register to post comments.