Hate crimes: It's time to finally pass a federal law
The most recent well-publicized anti-Latino bias crime -- this time involving the death of an Ecuadorean immigrant -- has prompted the National Council of La Raza to push for the passage, at long last, of a federal hate-crimes law:
Today the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—joined leaders from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda on Capitol Hill to urge Congress and the new Administration to make passage of the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” a priority. Following on the heels of November's brutal battery and murder of Marcelo Lucero in Suffolk County, NY, another senseless death has provoked outrage in communities throughout the nation. Two Ecuadorean brothers were assaulted on December 8 in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. Jose Osvaldo Sucuzhanay died last week as a result of his injuries.
“President-Elect Obama and the new Congress should not waste any time in immediately passing the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act’ so that more lives are not lost in senseless attacks,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The wave of hate unleashed by the polarized debate over immigration has led to an increase in violence and hate groups targeting Latinos. These recent deaths are a direct outcome of the anger and hatred spurred on by people who mischaracterize all Latinos and the institutions that serve them as a threat to our country.”
No doubt Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly will promptly find ways to distort this debate. But they need a little reality check:
As the SPLC reports:
Hate crimes targeting Latinos increased again in 2007, capping a 40% rise in the four years since 2003, according to FBI statistics released this fall.
As anti-immigrant propaganda has increased on both the margins and in the mainstream of society — where pundits and politicians have routinely vilified undocumented Latino immigrants with a series of defamatory falsehoods — hate violence has risen against perceived "illegal aliens." Each year since 2003, the number of FBI-reported anti-Latino hate crime incidents has risen, even as a swelling nativist movement has become larger and more vitriolic.
This about more than just Latinos, though. This is about black people (remember the Jena 6?), gays and lesbians, Muslims ... every kind of minority. And for that matter, it's about white straight people too:
Bias-crime laws are a way for society to make clear its condemnation of such acts, recognizing them as more heinous than simple crimes because they cause greater harm. Indeed, pretending as opponents do that a cross burned on the lawn is the same as being egged and toilet-papered, or that a gay-bashing rampage by young thugs is the same thing as a bar fight, simply tries to pretend away the truly hateful and terroristic element of the former of these, as though it doesn't exist. But it does exist, and its effects poison our society and make a joke out of our self-belief in ourselves as an "equal opportunity" society.
This, in the end, is the single clearest reason why progressives should avidly support a federal hate-crimes law: These are crimes whose primary purpose is to disenfranchise, to expel, to deny the most basic rights of association and opportunity to millions of Americans of all stripes. Civil libertarians need to come to grips with the fact that these crimes are real, their effects are real, and they represent, as Donald Green argues, a real "massive dead-weight loss of freedom" for those millions of Americans.
Americans lose their freedoms not just through government oppression; an honest appraisal of our history forces us to recognize that there is a substantial track record of Americans losing their freedoms (up to and including their lives) through the actions of their fellow citizens: the genocide of Native Americans; the long reign of terror of the "lynching era" and associated "sundown towns" that infected the entire nation; the expulsion and incarceration of Asian Americans; the long-running campaign of vicious hatred directed against gays and lesbians.
Hate crimes are an integral part of that history, and laws intended to punish their perpetrators with stiffer sentences are an important blow for the cause of very real and substantial freedoms for millions of Americans. Trying to argue that, in some esoteric sense, they constitute "thought crimes" that somehow deprive us of our freedoms (to what? commit crimes?) turns this reality on its head.
Yet progressives haven't yet figured out that framing hate-crime laws as a defense of people's civil liberties is precisely the argument that will instantly deflate the long-running "thought crime" argument. In all the debate over the legislation, I haven't seen the point raised once.
As long as small-town -- and even big-city -- law-enforcement officers labor under misconceptions about bias-crime laws and fail to properly identify, investigate, or prosecute them, places like Jena are going to fester. And this is where the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act comes in -- because its primary mission is to help local law cops and prosecutors do their job well -- by providing logistical and investigative support, grants, training, and other kinds of assistance.
Here’s a link to the most recent version of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Spineless Democrats -- facing a certain G.W. Bush veto -- crumbled when it counted last year when there was a historic chance for its passage. This year, they will have no excuse -- especially with Latino groups getting on board.
....knows his program is daily pornography for the many anti-Latino hate organizations in America. According to Fat Lou, Mexicans illegal immigrant workers in this country drug traffic, kill police, spread diseases, steal tax payers money, health care and other benefits, etc.
end our missery. sometimes I agree with him though, like documenting illegals.
Before I just couldn't take anymore of Lou's bullshit and finally stopped watching him, I would feel very uncomfortable at times. Perfect prime time show for a Klansmen Television station.
It's all a show...Hannity, Limbaugh, Dobbs....
they just tell the crazies what they want to hear, and they get millions out of it.
Maybe I should pick an issue with no particular interest to me, and yell at the top of my lungs, and the crazies will tune in and make me a millionaire.
oh wait, I enjoy my sleep too much
Lou Dobbs if you remember took his family and was a quest speaker at the family meeting of republicans...
This meeting is where they attack Obama with BS ,, like the waffle and Obama issues..
Beside that ,,, I do not believe in making special laws for a certain group(s) of people ,why can't this country had a law that pertains to every race or issue and stop making special laws for a certain groups..
I believe this does nothing but further separates Americans even move...
None
But there's no need for a federal hate crime law. First, most states have hate crime laws already. Secondly, federal laws (I believe USCA 241 and 242) have already been passed in order to charge people who deprive other distinct classes of their civil rights. The penalties for violating this are quite big as well. Passing this "local law enforcement hate crimes act" is pretty superfluous as its goals are already carried out in other statutes.
More laws ain't gonna make it better.
It all boils down to what we teach our kids. Children emulate their parents and this is a proven fact. Bill O'Reilly are you listening?
People, try reading some of the information at the links I've provided.
Short version: The nation's bias-crime laws are a hodgepodge. Six states have none at all, and even more states completely ignore those they have on the books. (Alabama, for instance, regularly reports zero bias crimes, even though a survey of news reports demonstrates that this is incorrect.) The result is a gross underreporting and underinvestigation of hate crimes as they actually occur. A Justice Department study estimates that the real numbers are closer to 50,000 hate crimes annually.
The chief reason for this is the gross underfunding of local law enforcement, where indeed most of the enforcement occurs. The LLEHCPA is designed to provide funding for proper training in the crimes for local officers and prosecutors, and to provide federal backup for those jurisdictions where investigators and prosecutors either are unable to pursue cases or refuse to do so for ideological reasons, as well as in those states where bias-crime laws do not exist.
I've outlined the moral reasons for pursuing these laws.
Those of you who are arguing against them remind me once again why white liberals are so weak-kneed on the subject.
"Those of you who are arguing against them remind me once again why white liberals are so weak-kneed on the subject."
Ridiculous statement on your part. You're assuming that someone is "weak-kneed" when the attack the basis for passing federal legislation. Maybe you should read the ten thousand federal laws already on the books. Passing another federal law isn't going to do anything. Pushing for enforcement of the laws that alraedy exist is what you should be concentrating on.
It sure is interesting that the liberals who want to reduce the number of federal laws on the books want to start here, isn't it?
So what you're saying is Assault as a crime isn't good enough. We have to establish mindset or thought process or just plain thoughts. Was he thinking '******' or 'spic' or just 'grr, brown person' or 'grr, not a white person'. Which constitutes 'hate'? How about an assault where the assailant says nothing? Not a hate crime? What, just a plain old assault case ain't sexy enough? What if a white person attacks a white person but says '******'. Hate? What about a black person who attacks a white person and says '******'. Is that hate? What constitutes the hate? Thoughts? Words? What if a white person says 'I hate you ******' and punches a black guy (think soft boxing-type punch), but right next to them a white person says nothing while he punches a black guy once but hard enough to knock him to the ground? You really want to spend the time to assertain 'hate'? Would you prosecute more stringently or assign a greater sentence to the person who spoke over the other case?
F*&k your 'thought crime' bullshit. Assault is assault is assault. Substitute ANY existing crime (harassment, whatever) for assault there. There is absolutely NO need to have special case of 'hate' prefixing existing crimes!
This is total horseshit.
Motive and intent -- known collectively as mens rea, or the state of mind of the perpetrator -- are standard features of criminal law and have been since its origins, not just in the USA but elsewhere. They are, after all, the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter. Perhaps you consider those "thought crimes" as well?
Try a thought experiment. Take two crimes with identical results and exterior circumstances but different motives and intent -- say, the deaths of two elderly women by suffocation at the hands of their sons. In one case, the woman is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's and has asked her son to end things for her, and he is acceding to her wishes. In the second, the son wants to gain her inheritance and insurance coverage and kills her for money. In both cases, you have identical results, but entirely different motives. And indeed the sons may be both convicted of murder, but the sentences and range of punishments will vary widely between the two because of the differences in motive and intent.
That's what hate crimes laws do: They enhance the sentences for acts that are already crimes if they are committed with a bias motive, because such crimes are demonstrably more harmful in their societal effects than ordinary crimes: 1) They have been shown over time to cause greater harm to their victims. 2) They have a terroristic effect on the target community. 3) They have a broadly toxic effect on a democratic society that at least outwardly promotes the notion of racial and sexual eguality.
So enhanced sentences for these crimes not only are sensible and fit well into the scope of criminal law as it exists, but they are important in making that law reflect the reality of our democratic society. People who would have us treat hate crimes the same as ordinary crimes are people who would treat the hateful, terroristic intent of these crimes as invisible, nonexistent. And they would be lying to the victims -- including the communities terrorized by them -- in the process.
This is why white straight liberals are so clueless about it: They think they don't have any skin in this game. You don't need to explain the need for hate-crime laws to black people or gays and lesbians, because they live the reality of having to deal with them.
And it's true that laws won't fix the problem. I've indeed argued this many times. But they are an important first step for building the social foundations that will.
But the mens rea in your thought experiment examples is identical. In both instances, the perpetrator had intent to kill (making the crime murder) with probable premeditation (making it murder in the first degree). The motive for each is certainly a factor, though it is one to be considered in mitigation or aggravation of sentence. As a practical matter though, the mercy killing would probably be charged as a lesser homicide so this is probably a distinction without a difference.
Additionally, "motive" is seldom an element of any crime aside from "hate" crimes. It is often incredibly difficult to determine and the determination is subject to a wide variety of abuses.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Um, excuse me, but didn't I stipulate that motive and intent are the chief components of mens rea? So if the motives are different, doesn't that make the mens rea different? Please explain where I was wrong. Or are you claiming that motive is not a component of mens rea? If so, you are simply wrong.
And please note: hate-crimes laws are sentence-enhancement laws. As you correctly note, mens rea is a sentencing consideration, and that's exactly what occurs here.
Mens rea is solely concerned with intent. It is divided into general and specific intent.
Common law burglary is a good example. It can be generally defined as entering a dwelling at night with intent to commit a felony. The question of general intent addresses whether the accused intended to enter the dwelling; the question of specific intent addresses whether the accused intended to commit a felony.
The motive of the accused is not an element of the crime and need not be proved to sustain the conviction. As far as the law is concerned, it is totally irrelevant whether the accused wanted to steal the television to pay for his next fix or whether he wished to donate it to an orphanage.
I enjoy your posts and am an avid reader of them. But on this point you are incorrect.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Did you bother to check my link?
I know of at least three law professors who disagree with you. Check out Fred Lawrence's (dean of the BU law school) book on bias crimes, Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes in American Law, which devotes the better part of a chapter to a discussion of motive and intent as components of mens rea.
Lawrence, in fact, makes a compelling case that the differences between motive and intent are overdrawn when it comes to bias crimes.
Yes. I did read the link, and thank you. I have not read Prof. Lawrence's book, but it does not appear to be a legal text and seems to be meant for more general consumption.
I did find a legal dictionary definition to which I can link. This is citable authority in any court - as well as law school classrooms.
The definition of "motive" notes:
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Evidence of motive can be used to establish intent, but it is not an element of the crime. Aside from strict liability violations, mens rea is always an element of a crime.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Here's what Lawrence writes (pp. 106-109):
Prof. Lawrence explicitly acknowledges that the law distinguishes between mens rea and motive. He then argues that this distinction is given more weight than it should have in the context of a hate crime.
To my knowledge, no court has agreed him. Hate crimes are different and are in derogation of hundreds of years of common law.
In any case, my original point was that you were using a legal term of art incorrectly. Professor Lawrence obviously agrees.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Well, I had Lawrence tell me explicitly in an interview that motive and intent both were components of mens rea. I may have misunderstood, but I don't think so.
Let me use another excerpt by way of example, this from p. 95:
And I'm not sure if he was arguing this aspect of the law, but he was co-counsel to the amici in Virginia v. Black.
I'd also like you to explain how, exactly, bias-crime laws "are in derogation" of established law.
After all, I think we've established:
-- Motivation can and often is considered when determining punishment -- it simply is irrelevant in matters of actual guilt.
-- Bias-crime statutes are sentence-enhancement laws.
How exactly are they different from other laws that enhance sentences for other motives? How exactly are they different from anti-discrimination laws, which rely upon the same kind of evidence?
I might add that the Supreme Court -- in Wisconsin v. Mitchell -- agreed with me:
Wow, that was a really long argument over what latin phrase we should use to describe motive and intent. Happily, we all understand what motive and intent mean in English, so problem solved.
Motivation didn't define different crimes at common law, intent does. Your example of first degree murder vs. manslaughter isn't a good one. 1st degree (intentional homocide in most states) is what's charged if you meant to kill the guy. Not if you meant to beat him up or were driving recklessly. It's got nothing to do with why you were angry with him when you hit him.
Motivation does come in at sentencing. Killing your mother to spare her a painful death would be a mitigating factor, killing her for profit would be aggravating. But the sentence would fall within within the range of what's available for the actual crime. Aggravating factors are what the legislature's supposed to take into account for when defining the maximum. So, fair enough. Maybe a separate enhancer better defines a what the legislature thinks is an aggravating factor (like repeat-offender enhancers) but it is something that wasn't done at common law and it targets thought (usually political) which isn't otherwise criminal.
Mitchell does, indeed, say you can have hate crime enhancers, but doesn't say it's a good idea. I practice in Wisconsin actually and I'm still not wild about Mitchell. I'm also not thrilled that the liberal wing of the court said that when someone's stopped walking down the street, his car, two blocks away, can be searched because it's "in his immediate control." Or that cities can condemn property to build a shopping mall. The liberal wing of the court loves the state's police powers, so Mitchell wasn't much of a surprise.
Ok, well done, time for a drink.
Motives and circumstances have always been important for our criminal justice system. What people are thinking when they committed their crime makes a huge impact. That's why, just for one example, we have everything from first-degree murder down to third-degree manslaughter, as opposed to just one generic crime of 'homicide'.
Dismissing this very obvious difference as just a "thought crime" is amazing naiveté. For instance, by your logic, spray-painting a swastika on a Jewish family's garage is just a bit of vandalism.
No. The fact is, assault is not just assault. Murder is not just murder. Motives and circumstances make a difference, and it is perfectly fair and appropriate to separate out crimes motivated by hate from the rest.
You know next to the yellow and pink ones on the back of our SUVs. If you just want to take a stand and raise awareness, why not just pass a resolution? A federal law is impractical. Passing bills at the state level where funding can be attached and they are likely to be enforced may make sense.
In a way hate crimes are like abortion. Legislation really won't fix the problem. Both are rooted in deeper societal issues.
What you need is two things. First is enforced hate speech legislation. Ones that allow private expression of "I just don't like you/them". Yet, make prosecution possible for anyone who publicly tries to dehumanize a class of people. The dehumanization is the key to what makes a hate crime different from any other crime and what must be stopped. This is where both the far left and far right balk, the speech laws. Due to the nature of public speech, this is likely to be federally effective.
Second, social justice needs to be addressed as it's the other root cause. When you have very little and already see yourself as victimized, then some other group coming in and wanting some of your (really tiny) piece of the pie is threatening. The sooner you dehumanize them, the faster you can neutralize that threat.
Dave, I am a southerner ... while you point to parallels, you point to 1920-30 era events. You're right. But that was then. We have had, what, almost two generations to see how it all worked out. And I'll tell you something interesting. The poorer you are down here, the more racist/sexist/homophobic you are. This is my neighborhood: part-black, part-asian, part-middle-eastern, part-white southern, my house is tri-racial hispanic/mixed, and all are basically professional, and you know what? No one cares about your race or religion. Not everyone is 100% comfortable, but no one wants to move. One kid recently insulted another's religion and it became a BIG DEAL. Politicians of both parties and all races have been happy to use those divisions to prey on the poor and afraid for self serving advantage down here. Federal laws that don't get enforced will mean squat. Social change will.
Until we break the cycle of "things aren't working for you because of *those people over there*", nothing will change. By the time the person is dead/terrorized by the hate crime, its far too late in the destructive process. But, you want to see weak knees and people panic, try passing hate speech laws. Canada seems to have a decent one, imho.
You're heart is in the right place though. And, this is way too long for an internet post.
Originally hate crime legislation was introduced in about 1984, the arguments against it have always been that any crime should be prosecuted equally, and that it is not a deterrent to have specific hate crime legislation if some one is going to kill or maim, knowing that it is a crime. I think la Raza should go about trying to compile statistics if it is to make this a cause. It got thru the MD legislature, Del. Gene Counihan was the House sponsor, and I worked with him as legislative assistant to pass it.
motive for violence irrelevant. unjustified under any conditions.
Not quite, self-defense and protection of home are mitigating circumstances in at least some states.
What I hate is what happened today. I was quietly eating lunch in our breakroom, reading the comics when this idiot came in to heat food I think for an office spread, and she was arguing and YELLING into her cellphone with someone using filty language. Here I was trying to relax, and I'd end up reading the same comic two or three times not comprehending it because of the noise.
I finally had to take my food elsewhere, and technically, I probably wasn't supposed to eat there.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
o'lielly and lou 'shoot that illegal' dobbs are providing a needed service for the financial establishment. they are effectively deflecting the real reasons for our economic nightmare--supply side economics--to a group of people that have almost no recourse.
yay, cowardly attacks in order to protect the master!!!
...wouldn't Dobbs, O'Reily, et al. be the first ones to be arrested under it?
After all, what they themselves do would be considered accessories to a crime.
Just saying...
Such this one committed by a poor homeless mentally challenged oppressed minority.
remember the Jena 6?
Those innocent guys who were persecuted for sucker-punching and kicking the crap out of some Redneck.
Murder is murder.
Rape is rape.
The damage done to the victim is identical whether instigated by one person's psychological issues of bigotry, sexism, homophopia, or just because the perpetrator is a violent cretin.
What hate crimes do is create a special class of citizen or person within a court of law. The special class of that person basically says to the rest of the country, "it's only because I'm a brown person who was killed by a white person that the perpetrator will get more prison time than if I had been a white victim." This is an ugly, codified form of discrimination which forces juries to act as mind-readers tasked with somehow knowing what exactly motivated the crime in the first place. Sometimes it's possible to know, but not always, and not by a long shot.
As a white male, I would hope that should somebody kill me (God forbid), that person would receive a punishment consistent with the law of the land, regardless of that person's color. All other things being equal, a black man shouldn't be prone to a more harsh punishment than a white man for the same crime committed, no matter the motive.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about some liberals: they say they want a color-blind society, and then they're the first to jump on the hate-crime bandwagon. Well, which is it? Do you want a color-blind society, or not?
Murder is not just murder. Rape is not just rape. Motives and circumstances matter, and we have always known that. That's why, just to name one example, our laws include everything from first-degree murder down to third-degree manslaughter, as opposed to just one generic crime of 'homicide' or some such.
And if you knew anything about hate crime legislation, you wouldn't waste anyone's time with that "special class" idiocy. Hate crime legislation doesn't declare that certain groups are protected and others not. It is about the motives of the criminal, not the race, gender, religion, or whatnot of the victim. If a black person killed a white person because of race, that would also be a hate crime.
Learn what you're talking about before you talk about it.
So you're saying that a person that murders your mother for her pearl necklace should get a lighter sentence than one that murdered her because of her race?
Thanks, Shade Tail. Perhaps the best example of this is Sikhs who are assaulted because the perps thought they were Muslims -- as well as the many hundreds of straight people who are assaulted because the perp thought they were gay. It's still a bias crime, because the intent is to send a message to gays or Muslims or whoever the target community might be.
So if they didn't think they were Muslims or didn't think they were gay they should get lighter sentences?
i suspect that this important issue will be addressed. i personally still believe like other countries we need to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants the BUSH administration is currently easing regulation to allow more "cheap" labor. now farm owners don't have to show/prove that they have a labor shortage. they will be able to just say they have a labor shortage. i have no problem with people coming and staying in this country legally.....but i believe it needs to be controlled. there is no excuse for hate crimes toward anyone. we need legislation to protect and instill tolerance.
bush will just ignore any law(new or old)if he doesn't like it.
You folks are missing the point.
Hate crimes legislation is in addition to the specific illegal activities that are committed.
Sure, the offenders are committing assault, vandalism, etc. on a specific individual; but they are also committing an act of violent intimidation against everyone who they identify with the specific victim.
That's what Orcinus means when he says, "...framing hate-crime laws as a defense of people's civil liberties..."
When someone hangs a noose on someone's porch, or randomly assaults someone who they think is latino or gay (or whatever,) they are not simply committing assault or vandalism. They are threatening (often effectively) everyone in that group.
If several women in my neighborhood are raped over a few weeks, I am going to be scared and intimidated as hell regardless of who is doing the raping.
If the women were all white women and the rapist was black, would he be committing a hate crime? If all the women were black and the rapist was white would he be committing a hate crime? Does the black rapist hate all women? Does he hate all white women. Does the white rapist hate women? Does he hate all black women?
I don't know, I'm just trying to figure all this out.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
This should help ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24czSl30EmA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Right, that is true. The problem is, there are already federal civil rights laws to enforce that. And I should state again, the penalties can carry life in prison. And they are being tried in court as we speak to charge civil rights era murderers who got away with their crimes. The emphasis should be on enforcing these laws, not coming up with new legislation. The weapons are already in place.
If I paint swastikas on a Jewish Community Center, it is a different crime than if I paint graffiti on the corner grocery store.
It is violent intimidation. It is not a "thought crime".
There are already laws against violent intimidation and making threats against people.
And I say no, absolutely not, a thousand times no.
First, most of the arguments already presented are correct. Hate crime legislation would amount to punishing people for their thoughts rather than solely their actions; would constitute a form of discrimination, would force juries to become mind readers and would but additional laws on the books where none can be adequately justified.
More importantly, it would unacceptably change the nature of criminal prosecution in this country. Hate crime laws would be selectively invoked at the pleasure of authorities. Any crime committed by a member of one demographic against a member of another could be spun, and thusly prosecuted as a hate crime. Moreover, it would compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial in such circumstances, essentially validating 'X type of people hate Y type of people so this person must be a criminal' logic.
Additionally, as we move more and more towards being a nation with no single majority, we should also be moving away from laws that are likely to further exacerbate the sorry state of our race relations.
I'll let you have your silly and useless hate crime laws if you decriminalize marijuana and stop mandatory minimum sentencing that is over crowding our prisons.
Do you realize the impact that enhanced and mandatory penalties have on the system? Sometimes these enhanced penalties come from because one word is uttered in anger during what would otherwise be a routine assault.
Marijuana criminalization is a hate crime.
let's smoke on it.
One hit for you and one for me.
Next thread!
Marijuana solves everything. Again
Minorities and women have ample evidence that rightwingers don't care about their rights, yet way too many support these clowns at election time. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, often openly denigrate these groups, with no shame.
All crimes are NOT equal.
We must take the broader social implications into consideration.
Hate Crime legislation address's the inherent problem of racist or bigoted actions that have the power to incite violence in others on a larger scale.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Where's the koolaid?
nice job Lou Dobbs. clown
Should I turn me in?
Do you hate yourself publicly? Are you a protected class of people? (yes exactly how many of you are there inside you??). Oh wait .. if there are that many of you inside your head .. I think we now know the problem. (I kid).
Its the yelling fire test.
If you yell fire in a public place and that causes problems for many people, you are at fault.
If you yell fire at home and scare the crap out of your cat. We, the public, could care less. (Cat, maybe cares more so). Call PETA if it will make you feel better, sure.
Whats with personal responsibility these days? If you say or do something publicly that causes harm to someone, you are personally responsible. If you say, oh no I'm not! Doesn't that make you what conservatives accuse liberals of all the time? Wanting no personal responsibility?
You have every right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, if you happen to be in a crowded theater with me and see a fire, I would greatly appreciate your letting us know about it.
What Holmes actually said is that you can't knowingly and falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It is these two factors which make the analogy virtually useless in this type of discussion. I highly doubt most bigots know their beliefs are false. Quite the opposite - they vehemently believe they are correct.
Also, the "public danger" argument has been tried and repeatedly defeated - and rightly so. If that is the distinction, the police are justified in shutting down every unpopular protest on the grounds of a possible public danger.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Your first paragraph is a false argument, which you correct in your second.
I grew up around politics (federal). Then got poor in the south, then got an education and got comfortable again. Many of the people fanning the flames here *do* know what they say is false. If a politician or talking head knowingly and falsely fans the flames of racism, sexism or homophobia ... Why would Holmes NOT apply?
For that matter, hate speech is more analogous to communicating threats, harassment and stalking. Laws are going on the books about those. Simply not liking the content is not the problem. Its the knowledge that the speech will cause harm. If someone said what people say about "hispanics" in general about me in specific .. I could sue their butts off. But if they say it about hispanics as a class its protected? Pfft. Not buying that for a minute.
Speech rights are like gun rights. Both must be used responsibly. There are places I can't carry a gun too. No right is unabridged.
Additionally, the "clear and present danger test" articulated in Schenck was drastically restricted by the court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) which stated that speech which some consider inflammatory cannot be punished unless it is directed to incite "imminent lawless action."
These are legal terms of art and not easily subject to interpretation without specializing in First Amendment law. But for our purposes, it is perfectly legal to publicly state that "all blondes are low-life scum"; saying "kill all the blondes," however, is not protected.
As far as determining whether bigots believe their speech is "false," just how are we going to do that? Especially on matters of "opinion."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Actually, I think "kill all the blondes" is still protected by Brandenberg. Saying, "kill that blond" to a guy with a gun who's likely to do what you say isn't protected. And "kill that blond because I really hate blondes" is probably eligible for some sort of enhancer.
But you're right in saying this doesn't directly address hate crime enhancers, but is still employs all the same arguments. Brandenberg protects speech, which becomes criminal when it incites imminent lawlessness or, in Holmes' case, creates a tangible danger by itself. In most European countries you have a right not to have some combination of your race, religion, etc insulted, and this can be punished criminally. Denying the holocaust in Austria is a crime, insulting Scientology got some guy locked up in London recently. It's a tangle.
.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You're correct that Brandenburg puts in place a very weak test. Since my original comment in this line was snarky, I wasn't even trying to fully cover First Amendment law, just use the generalist/populist example usually given as humor with a cat. However, if your point is that abandoning the weak test has great risk then that is an excellent point.
Nonetheless, I think we need to start going there (refining the Brandenburg test). Carefully! Of course. However, the right of the people to advocate violence in protest does need to be protected. Under Brandenburg there is no difference between advocating genocide and advocating a protest about your local school reassignment plan without a permit.
I think the area of test here is to separate the knowing advocacy of dehumanizing a class of people to incite violence against them from other forms of advocating violence or illegal acts in protest. If its not OK to dehumanize a single person in the class, its not OK to dehumanize them all. Logically that is still sound, but translating it into law without gutting the First Amendment admittedly will take great care and small steps.
Not to mention, the protections of the individual against damaging speech are in the area of defamation, slander and libel. Another tangled and messy area. Proving is always the messy part.
Still, your closing sentence is biased in phrasing. If they are bigots then obviously they do believe. True though, it would be as messy as any defamation proof, but not always impossible. Opinion vs. Fact tests vary.
What about the hate filled Christain death cult that sought to remove the rights of gay people in California? That was undeniably a hate crime perped by millions of hate filled Christian extremists. Do all Christian piles of fascist sits get put in prison? If we're going to have "hate crimes" then we need to drag every religious lunatic off to prison.
First it would have to be an actual crime to pass such a law. Last I looked, it wasn't.
Canada has hate crime laws and they seem to work fine. I'm all for progress and this is something all progressives should embrace.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Canada, last I heard, is shutting down publications for criticizing Islam. It's not working fine.
You're talking about their free-speech laws, not their bias-crime laws.
There would be plenty of room in the prison system if it was only used for violent criminals. Duke Cunningham and the like should be under home detention with community service, such as garbage clean-up or working at homeless shelters. No one should be incarcerated for having a couple of joints. William Calley served a grand total of 4 1/2 months for the My Lai massacre.
First, if I remember correctly, the Jena 6 could have been charged with a hate crime.
Even without hate crime enhancers that most states already have, judges are required to consider victim impact and the vulnerability of the victim in sentencing. Most hate crimes would get near the maximum on their own merits. You want to increase the maximums and throw people you don't like into federal court.
How would you feel about a "patriotism enhancer" (I'm honestly surprised no one's tried this)? Writing graffiti that opposes the gov't or a war is no longer simply vandalism but becomes a 5 year mandatory minimum. You may disagree with the policy, but I assume you'd have no constitutional problem with congress' right to make such a law. Shoplifting while atheist? Loitering while a pedifile?
I had a client a while ago who had sex with an underaged girl. She was developmentally disabled so he was charged with a hate crime. Should this kid really be in federal court? If you don't think federal prosecutors will do things with new law that you don't intend, have a look at the people serving 30 year sentences in federal prisons for selling crack on the street corner. This sounds a little conservative to me.
It's false that the Jena 6 could have been charged with a bias crime. What should have happened was that the white students whose acts sparked the black retaliation should have been charged with bias crimes but weren't. It was a classic demonstration of the consequences of ignoring hate crimes.
No, they should have been charged with intimidation and threat of violence.
Yes, and in doing so, they would have thereby pretended that the motive -- to intimidate not just the immediate victims but every black kid in the school -- didn't exist. Just as you are.
You're absolutely right in what you say should have happened. You couldn't be more wrong in saying the black kids couldn't have been charged with a hate crime. As I recall, black kids beat up white kid after white kid taunts them after a series of racial confrontations. This fits exactly every hate crime statute I've seen. If you could write one that only puts bad people in jeopardy, let me know. Laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone and, in my experience, prosecutors will use enhancers, not only when your sensibilities are offended, but whenever they can.
You make a lot of good points about advantages of hate crime enhancers but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that they create any problems at all, either in practical application or to the principle of free speech and free thought. This isn't right vs. wrong, there are good arguments on both sides.
Hates assimilation, now with the economy the way it is, it will get worse.
I'm not so hot on immigrants driving down our standard of living either being that the elite can get them to work for peanuts.
I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Credited to Voltaire
Don't like the First Amendment? Change the Constitution. But remember, if you do, or if you pretend that "hate" isn't covered, any and all unpopular speech/belief can be criminalized.
How about this one: any crime motivated by "anti-American" hate shall be subject to enhanced penalties. Because when anti-American hate is combined with crime, the victim is really all of America.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Crimes are not free speech. Bias-crime laws only affect acts that are already crimes.
These laws simply do not affect free speech, unless you think bashing queers is a form of free speech.
Where is there a law against insulting gay people?
You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? Because when I'm talking about gay-bashing, I'm talking about the thugs who like to cruise gay districts for queers to beat up.
No point talking to someone who's going to be dishonest about it.
The wingnuts would love it:
Jaywalk during a protest against the Iraq War? Add a year in prison to the $50 fine. Break a window in the same protest? Sorry, the sentence isn't 30 days it's five years.
Perfectly proper because: "[c]rimes are not free speech."
There are First Amendment implications all over this topic, as you are well aware, and to so casually disregard them is "being deliberately obtuse" and "dishonest" as you accuse the commenter above of being. Did you even notice the commenter's handle?
As for your casual denigration of "straight white liberals" elsewhere on this thread, did it ever occur to you that the enormous gains we have made in gay/lesbian rights over the past decade is a direct result of these "straight white liberals"? But they disagree with you - so #$%& 'em.
Why the change in tone from our conversation above?
Equating the defense of Free Speech with the speech being defended is one of the more slimy right wing tactics. No, I don't believe "queer bashing" is speech - let alone protected speech. I don't think bashing anybody is protected speech. But you knew that as you typed.
Much as I disagree with it, hating gays is fully protected by the First Amendment. So is burning a flag, but defending flag burning as protected speech hardly means I hate my country. You were fully aware of these distinctions as well. Yet I'm either an idiot or a homophobe.
Thanks a lot Mr. Neiwert.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing wheyguy.
I don't think people who oppose bias crime laws are necessarily bigots or homophobes. They're just joining their ranks, largely out of misbegotten motives.
And I'm not denigrating straight white liberals, by any means, since I am one. But I've observed a willingness to adopt right-wing talking points by many of them on this issue, and it's disturbing, not to mention perplexing. What I see is more in the way of a blind spot.
Incidentally, your proposal wouldn't fly because being insufficiently patriotic (an overly vague concept that has no known basis in law, unlike racial discrimination) has never been known to have the kind of socially toxic effects that cross-burnings, lynchings, and hate crimes have been known to inflict on the nation's minority populations.
These laws are passed because of an actual, real-life need. You would need to demonstrate a similar need before arguing for the passage of your law.
These laws are not passed because of an "actual, real-life need." They are passed because they have enough votes.
If the Mississipi legislature (to pick on an easy target) decides they want to protect America's reputation, they don't need to demonstrate any need whatsoever.
They simply have to "find" that it is necessary. What do they need for that finding? A majority of votes. Thats it; that's all. Of course they'll pad the record, but that's only a formality - it is extremely difficult for a reviewing court to second guess such findings.
The statute I proposed was not meant to address insufficient patriotism, it was addressing a motivation to denigrate America. There actually are such statutes which directly prohibit speech which denigrates the nation (e.g. in Turkey). However, such statutes would run directly afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S.
But the "hate crimes" logic provides an easy loophole to those pesky First Amendment concerns.
In my proposal the logic would run something like this:
If there is a distinction between that logic and "hate crime" logic, I can't find it. And this is the type of law that right wingers could probably get passed in several states (didn't mean to just pick on Mississippi).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Well, what would be your criteria for establishing the motive that a crime was committed out of a desire to denigrate America?
Because the levels of evidence required for prosecuting bias-motivated crimes is fairly well-established. That is, prosecutors must establish both tiers of mens rea -- they have to prove not only that the crime was committed with full intent, but that it was motivated by bias. Typically prosecutors can proceed only when they're able to demonstrate both the pre-existence of that bias and the fact that their actions were in its service. This means most prosecutions only proceed when they can prove basic intent as well as whether the crime itself was motivated by bias.
In the case of your proposed crime, you'd have considerable difficulty establishing that whatever crime (say, jaywalking) committed was done so with an anti-American bias. Previous writings alone would not count. (You're aware that courts have consistently thrown out bias-crime prosecutions that attempt to use only prior contacts/writings as evidence of a bias motivate, I trust.)
As for why hate-crimes laws exist, my own experience is rather to contrary. Idaho was one of the first states to pass a bias-crimes law, and I was witness to the events surrounding that. You can read more here. Suffice to say that I don't claim these laws exist for real-world reasons without evidence.
Well, come on, the guy J walks with a sign that says "Down with America. Stop the War." And those people were going to jail during WWI. In fact, most times the Bill of Rights is overlooked it's liberals who get screwed. Our own beloved Sen. McCarthy was no fan of the 1st amendment. You can't believe, after the Patriot Act, it would be impossible to ram something like this through?
Look, you have put your finger on a real world problem that can be addressed by further limiting constitutional protections, but there are a lot of problems that could be fixed the same way. Each amendment comes with a cost. The 2nd gives us 20,000 gun deaths a year. The 4th and 5th mean criminals occasionally go free. The first offers us pornography and really nasty racists who get to live next door. But these rights are meant to protect individuals, not society.
Not everyone who disagrees is a victim of right-wing talking points; it's perfectly liberal to have a healthy concern for the Bill of Rights. Most arguments I've had on this topic have been between prosecutors and defense attys, or civil rights attys and ACLU attys. Four very liberal groups (in cities at least) who happen do differ greatly on issues of crime and punishment and the individual vs. the state. I'm uncomfortable with hate crime enhancers because I don't like the idea of declaring open season on unpopular motivations, I'm not convinced it would actually deter crimes like the one in NY this week and I don't have as much faith as you in prosecutorial discretion.
I'm not a completely cold-hearted straight white male though. I do wish threats, intended to provoke or prevent action, could be prosecuted more often, in a way akin to blackmail. Haven't thought it all the way through, but I think this would address your problem with intimidating graffiti and would be useful in a lot of domestic violence cases (where the police now have to throw their hands up and say, he hasn't committed a crime). Anyway...
.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Well, I think it's important to maintain a healthy respect for the Bill of Rights, particularly for the First Amendment, because I'll be the first to acknowledge that free-speech rights are those most likely to be placed at risk -- largely through prosecutorial overreach -- by bias crimes laws. But this is true of many, many other laws as well -- and is reflective of the issues surrounding prosecutorial discretion generally rather than these laws in particular.
Moreover, I had similar skepticism when I first approached the question, and found the farther I explored it, the more convinced I was that (as the Court has found) these laws, particularly as sentence-enhancement statutes built around existing criminal acts, in fact manage to tread that line well on the side of free speech, while in fact addressing the real loss of civil rights caused by these crimes.
In the meantime, I'd like to emphasize a point I raised in the post itself:
In other words, while we argue esoteric and largely abstract questions about the potential that government could impinge on our civil rights, we continue to act as though very real crimes whose purpose is to deprive other citizens of their rights are simply ordinary crimes.
Look, I've had this running disagreement with other liberals as well, and I'm more than willing to recognize that people of good will can reach conclusions opposite mine. But I have yet to have had any of them address the ethical dimensions of this -- namely, that we are letting relatively abstract concerns prevent us from acting concretely to protect people's real rights. As I mention above, the government does not represent the only entity in American political life capable of depriving us of our rights; so can our fellow citizens. And it's legitimate for government to act, and for laws to be passed within the framework of known constitutional rights -- as are bias-crime laws -- to take action against them.
However, others have raised a final point, and I want to make it here as well -- namely, that these laws are at best a band-aid on larger problem having to do with economic conditions, scapegoating, and education (or lack thereof), all of which affect the persistence of bigotry in American life.
I'll offer an excerpt from my book on bias crimes, Death on the Fourth of July:
The motivations behind "hate crime" laws are motivations I entirely agree with. However, the greatest dangers to the Bill of Rights are often from good intentions.
People don't support warrantless eavesdropping because they want W and his ilk to have the ability to be nosy and undermine his political rivals, people support it because they're scared and they want to keep their children safe.
Moreover, you've touched on several items which are desperately needed; will have a far more profound effect than any "hate crime" legislation; and are not burdened with the same constitutional dangers. In particular: addressing poverty, increasing education, and societal condemnation.
Poverty is not only a major cause of hate crime, but of almost all crime (white-collar greed aside). I'm sure you've seen the graphs of economic indicators and crime rates side by side. The correlation is amazing. I'm of the belief that Canada's drastically lower crime rate is a direct result of their social safety net.
Education, of course, is the silver bullet, and it requires little elaboration.
For societal condemnation, I'll simply reference the passage from your book which very ably sums it up. Thank you. (BTW, who is McDevitt?)
In any case, I believe these represent real solutions without the constitutional dangers. I also do not see a problem with our general "non-hate crime" laws being too lenient. In fact, it's often quite the opposite - especially since we surpassed Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and South Africa under apartheid in the numbers of people we lock up.
Effective enforcement of existing laws could go a long way toward prevention of "hate" motivated crime. Of course, many police departments have a serious problem with their own officers holding the very views causing these crimes. In the Chicago Police Department, for example, torture of African American "suspects" was found to be "widespread and systematic" by a Northwestern University group which studied the problem.
In that context, "hate crime" legislation is like spitting on the Chicago Fire: you're far more likely to get your suit messed up than you are to do any real good.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Sorry, I think that's an inapt analogy. Warrantless wiretapping is a direct violation of existing law, and moreover, the effort to undertake it began before 9/11, so the "keeping us safe" pretext doesn't hold water.
Bias-crime laws, on the other hand, have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as long as they don't impinge on free-speech rights. Moreover, I don't think you've been able to demonstrate that anyone's free speech rights have ever been violated by any application of current bias-crime laws, nor would they be if maintained within their constitutional boundaries.
You'll have to work a lot harder to demonstrate that your theoretical concerns about potential loss of civil rights under bias-crime laws outweighs the very real loss of people's civil rights that occurs as a result of these crimes.
Thanks for the exchange. I'm done for now.
(BTW, see the link in the text for more info on McDevitt.)
Good night.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No, honestly, you make some good points, and I sometimes wonder if I'm not wrong on this. But my skepticism wasn't relieved as yours was the more I looked into it. This isn't Georgia in 1920, we're not turning the criminal law on the majority, but the minority. And that should call to mind the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights. I'd also point out that we became the majority, not by vigorous application of criminal law, but by persuasion, example and the rightness of our position (and, well, some credit to "Free to Be You and Me"). But, then, I've had a couple of drinks now and I'm happy if we can just disagree and still be good liberals. Again, you have some nice arguments.
This isn't Georgia in 1920, but it is New Orleans in 2006. Remember the article about vigilantes in N.O. after Katrina? There's an article in the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson
which describes vigilante activity in Algiers right after the storm. These were acts committed by a group of friends and neighbors, most likely friends and neighbors of the local authorities, and there will be no prosecution or even investigation. These were people sending a clear message to blacks, "get out of our neighborhood or get shot".
Is there also such a thing as a "love" crime?
Proposition 8?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Thanks, Dave. Something else to add to the lectures for my race and ethnicity class. Things are going to get a whole lot uglier with a black man taking office as president and the economy tanking. Our elites have been remarkably successful in getting working class whites to blame minorities for their problems rather than elite greed.
you better get out more often and see what's really going on, the unskilled already know there is nothing they can do about "elite greed" and they turn to the only thing that they can do something about, immigration.
Check out pre-civil war New York sometime.
If you work for a public institution, I don't think you have the same perspective as some that have actually been through it.
I believe when countries have legislated "hate" laws, they exempt the Bible, etc., which makes the whole effort rather biased and somewhat bizarre.
Remember when LULAC claimed this little guy was a hate crime?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONtNt9at_k
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Or does the thought of more government get you all hot and bothered? The last thing we need is more retarded ass laws that alienate one group over another. I hardly see how a 'hate crime' is worse than two people of the same race. All you will do is make one group 'better' than the other.
Why dont you act on protecting Americans?? Do you hate America so much that we should let our hospitals close to take care of illegal immigrants? Or drive down labor wages so your neighbor cant get a raise or better yet gets replaced?
Can you imagine how a 'hate law' would be abused??? So if I get in a car accident because a person of color blew a stop sign.. he or she could claim I yelled ****** at the top of my lungs and get out of it? How exactly can you possibly make this law work?
You keep clamoring 'there oughta be a law!' No idiot.. THERE OUGHTA BE MORE DAMN FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT. Our justice system does a fine job of locking people up. Ask the minorities you look to protect.. I think we even beat a damn commie country in putting people in the system. You gotta hand it to the Left.. More government. More regualtion. More prisons. More ignoring the facts to suit an insatiable appetite to knock our wonderful country.
I came to this site regularly in 05-06 to get news. Just started back a few weeks ago and am disgusted. Liberals will not be happy until there is a cop in every house, guns taken from every American, abortions on demand for kids at the 7/11 and what little wealth we get to keep handed over to an INEPT, OUT OF CONTROL, GOVERNMENT.
At what point do you realize the government sucks? It does not make anything fair! It takes from one group and hands to another.
He knows that the Government is only there to protect the elite from the unskilled and lower classes, that's what has to change.
You made my point for me dude.
No one likes "crime" nor do we like "hate." However, giving the Federal government "leadership" another law that invades our minds is not the solution. Punish the crime. A fist is a fist. A fist plus an unpopular word should not increase the level of punishment nor should we trust the national government to use this wisely. Killing is a crime, no matter why. Let us not have groups proposing what our thoughts should or should not be. Especially racist organizations like The Race.
beginning to understand why some of the regular folks vote against their own interests now besides the three G's. they vant to be left alone and not have some high falootin' assholes tell them what to do whether it be smoking drinking, etc...
This is coming from a "yallow dog"[sic] liberal
Great post
Why should there be more of a penalty for a crime based on the race/religion/sexual orientation of the victim? A crime is a crime. Neiwert uses the dubious comparison of someone pulling the plug on their aging parent at their request, vs. someone killing a parent for the insurance money. There would be no difference in these crimes in the eyes of the law, it is up to the jury to weigh factors such as these. If a prosecutor wants to play up the racism of criminals during a trial, let them. Don't create another amorphous federal law for government officials to selectively enforce and abuse.
Completely false. Do you understand the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter?
Yes, mens rea considerations are in fact largely relegated to the sentencing aspects of criminal law. That, as it happens, is what these laws do.
Second, these laws are not based at all on the actual status of the victim. They are based solely on the motives of the perpetrator.
You might be able to convince some people that you are justified legally in using hate crimes legislation, but I fail to see how it is morally justifiable. Why should someone be punished more severely because he commits a crime due to racism or prejudice?
If two guys get into an argument over politics, and one beats up the other because he is a Democrat, would that be a hate crime? How about if a Red Sox fan beat up a Yankee fan? Both of these situations have happened recently. Once you allow these laws to be passed there will be no end to the abuse, while they will certainly not curb criminal behavior.
If someone is so bigoted and enraged that they would kill someone because of the color of their skin, etc., why would the threat of a few more years in jail influence their actions?
Do you agree that people should be punished more severely when their crimes cause greater harm?
I've demonstrated above why bias crimes cause greater harm than their parallel crimes. If that's the case, then why shouldn't their perpetrators be punished more severely?
Crime prevention is only one of several possible reasons for the level of punishment one gets, and mostly it's only a tangential consideration. Culpability is far more important.
To lower hate crimes? I hardly see why a special new law is needed. Cant a jury and judge determine that in the court of law, without additional laws?
What happened to the guys that killed the black guy in TX by dragging him down the road? Did they get a special 'white' sentence???
How about if an illegal immigrant commits crime in America we turn him or her into a slave, as long as he works for black farmers. We gotta make it fair right?
Keep cheering 'more law' until its on your doorstep and youre shaking your head wondering 'why me?'
I hardly see any benefit from a sinister law that has the potential to be used against people.
The problem was underlined very succinctly by "Gandol teh Pirate" above. Want to see this law in action, here are the facts, follow the link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008...
Yep, that's right... a group of men get together for a revenge slaying, but throw in a little torture and rape beforehand.
Oh, what's that? This couldn't be a hate crime... why is that? Because the defendants are black. Only white people can commit hate crimes... or so, the state of California would have us believe.
My point: Hate was the motive. Do I think they should be tried for hate crimes? No. There are already laws to punish these men and I hope they get the maximum sentence. And if it were a group of white men who commited the acts, I would hope they get the maximum sentence. Most importantly, we shouldn't create a laws which are selectively applied based on the perpetrator's race.
For those who think it won't happen... the example above proves it already is happening.
Hate crime laws criminalize thought, and that is not tolerable in a free democratic society. They are an attempt to legislate morality. Yes, a different morality from the Religeous Right's, but a morality all the same. The "should's and shouldn'ts " of the Left are just as annoying and arrogant as those of the Right.
The deliberate killing, beating or other assault on any person is always a "hate crime," regardless of that person's race, religion, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or the length of his hair. They are all hate crimes, and special protections for certain groups is contrary to the principle of equal protection under the law.
And special protections intensify and prolong hostility toeward the groups getting the special treatment. The goal, I think, is to move toward acceptance of all in this diverse nation. Federal Hate Crime laws will give the Republicans leverage and do nothing, absolutely nothing to lessen bigotry.
Your intent is honorable, but is an example of "Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong!" But it will have the opposite effect of what you want.
Rocky: You're living proof of the susceptibility of even ostensible liberals to right-wing talking points.
Try reading the thread above. You'll see that every single one of your talking points has been addressed and largely debunked. Especially the "thought crimes" nonsense.
are the obvious reason why conservatives get so much ammunition from liberals. Smug alert folks.. Hows the weather with your head stuck up your arse?
'Right wing talking points' GFYS ;)
You have not addressed my point that liberal moralizing is just as annoying as conservative moralizing. Hate crime legislation is definitely an attempt to legislate morality. And it won't work for the same reason laws against prostitution and drugs don't work.
I challenge you to give an example of a person abandoning bigotry because it became illegal. People abandon bigotry when they come recognize commonality. That can't be accomplished by legislation. It can be done by information, whether through quality news coverage of real people, or quality entertainment. We don't need laws that reenforce separateness by special protections.
You also wrongly assume I'm repeating conservative talking points. The points I made are views I've had since the idea of "hate crimes" first appeared, and they are ALL my own. Your ideological outlook is typical of the thinking that led me to disavow the "liberal" label in favor of "progressive."
Pragmatic Progressive, that is. I believe that policies that don't work, don't work, even though you believe they "should" work. I reject ALL ideologies as lazy thinking.
For someone to inflict such pain or worse on somebody else just because they're different is horrible. What if someone did the same thing to someone in their families? I hope they find those animals.
NOBODY 2012
...is that it creates a slippery slope. Might it someday be a hate crime to, say, criticize the state of Israel for valid reasons? What if a French guy picks a fight with me & I win the fight? Can he then claim I called him a frog & thereby pile extra punishment on me? We already have laws on the books addressing murder & assault, etc. What difference does it make that that Ecuadoran guy was killed due to racism vs. being killed for the $40 he had in his pocket? Murder is murder. Assault is assault. If I get stabbed, it doesn't matter to me if the stabber did it because I'm a white guy or if he did it to rob me. Either way, it's assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder or whatever. The issue at hand is crappy schools, irresponsible "journalists," corrupt & ineffectual law enforcement and ignorant citizens; correct those issues & all crime diminishes, hate or otherwise.
It's about damn time that federal law take bias crimes into consideration, no matter which group of people the crime was intended to intimidate. And I am tired of hearing about "thought crimes," we are not talking about simply saying despicable things, we are talking about people doing despicable things to other people because of who they are.
Another thing that I have to say drives me crazy is when people try to argue that *all* violent crimes are hate crimes. No, not necesarily. One thing that became clear to me while I was persuing psychology as a course of study (full disclosure, I changed majors, so take this with as big or small a grain of salt you want) is that sometimes there really is indifference behind a crime. Obviously someone who was indifferent about someone they've killed is very dangerous and ought to handled accordingly, BUT, wouldn't you say that is something in another catagory than a violent crime committed against someone who was of an ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation that the perp hated?
On a personal note, as someone born to one Hispanic parent and one non-Hispanic parent, I am so glad I'm not Lou Dobbs' daughter! (If I was, you could bet he'd never hear so much as "boo" from me, ever) Does it ever occur to that blowhard that if some of the very people he whips up into blind hatred met up with his daughters on the street, they wouldn't be too kind to them, and that they wouldn't bother to find out that these were his daughters? Really, the man should be ashamed...
I've never seen change without a fire
My brother lost his temper and punched a woman while calling her a dyke in a public place. The woman was not severely injured, but the state chose to prosecute it as a hate crime due to the fact he used the word in the act of the assault.
The thing is my brother is handicap, asperger's syndrome but really close to full blown autism.
Should he have enhanced penalties because he couldn't control his mouth during an assault? He was confused as well. The woman had mental problems and was yelling and making threatening gestures.
Into this mix of two individuals with diminished capacities, you throw in the enhanced penalty of hate crime?
Was the prosecution successful? Because usually, the mere use of epithets during an assault is considered not-very-adequate evidence of a bias crime, unless the perp has some other prior history of similar speech. I've seen cases either where the charge was dismissed in such instances, or where the jury refused to convict. Most prosecutors I know won't advance such charges, either.
Granted that I live in an area I'd term "New South", I have many relatives in "Old South" parts. Like the area in SC where a lot of the white supremacist separatists are moving now. My relatives there don't mind so much. Not like the reaction you witnessed in Idaho as described in your link. Crime in the upstate in SC is rising fast. I hear Greenville is still somewhat safe, just down go outside it. Its still a high crime town though.
Unless you provide the federal troops like with the school segregation laws, it won't really do anything. And now the troops are long gone, the schools are resegregating too btw.
As the mother of a half-hispanics, one disabled, I do really care about hate crimes. My children are in the two classes where hate crimes are growing the fastest. I want the solutions to work though.
I see no solution that could do anything in the south short of martial law unless the poverty and the ignorance that breeds is addressed. We've all been arguing punishments, but not addressing the causes. Down here, this is the big one. Poverty, leading to ignorance. While it exists to the degree it does, there will be hate crimes.
Comments are closed on this entry