8051. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:16 PM PDT
Cal:"But as I said, you could argue that by virtue of the government stepping into add extra punishment because it is *so* common for people and judicial systems to ignore the crimes against these groups--we are confirming a bigoted person's belief of the numbers who agree with them. So it's arguable that it's working *against* societal values."
This strikes me as a bit of stretch, and seems to go in the face of past experience. Civil rights laws have certainly been effective at conveying that certain prejudices are not viewed favorably by society. Discrimination did not *increase* with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and there is no reason to believe that such a counterintuitive result is caused by hate crimes statutes as well.
8052. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:19 PM PDT
Spud,
Oh, I agree. It was Tudor who seemed to imply that was the purpose, not me. I was just scoffing.
Look. I hear what you're saying about hate crimes laws and as I've already said, my opposition is lukewarm. If the worst thing that happens is that someone gets punished an extra five years (or whatever) for killing someone in a protected group (protected because they are so otherwise unprotected), I'm not going to get bent out of shape.
But to me, the laws don't make sense--I agree with Niner pretty much point for point. And, just to restate the inevitably flaky CalGal angle, it's even arguable that, by identifying the groups that are particularly hated, there is a buttressing of the bigot's belief--"lots of people think like me".
8053. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:19 PM PDT
DavidTutor:
Welcome to the wacky world of CalGal's brain. If you stick around, you'll see her trademark incoherence crop up pretty much everywhere in the Fray.
8054. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:20 PM PDT
Spudboy:
Two points:
First, you never responded to my objection re: your table. That table is not, as I read it, a compilation of PROSECUTED hate crimes, but just of hate crimes. So it does nothing to dispute my contention that these laws will mainly be prosecuted against the PC-disfavored group; i.e., white straight males.
Two, if you're putting so much reliance on the argument that we need hate-crime laws to punish the "crime" directed at a minority community at a whole, shouldn't you have to show that the criminal planned to cow the community at large (i.e., actually had a fear campaign in mind), rather than just show that he was motivated by some vague notion of "hate"?
If you don't require this proof, then you're punishing the perp for a crime you haven't proven to have been committed. In other words, you can't justify the extra punishment by saying the hate crime is a terrorist crime against a whole group, and yet never prove that the criminal actually intended to do so.
To punish without proof of intent flies in the face of the entire theory of justice.
8055. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:22 PM PDT
Rask,
It was intentionally a bit of a stretch. No argument. But when you look at what the law is intended to accomplish--and the arguments used--I get picky.
But civil rights laws only prevented discrimination, yes? Affirmative action would be a closer analogy and there the results and acceptance by society are more problematic as the years go by.
8056. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:24 PM PDT
Calls are coming in to every gay lesbian organization nationwide in the wake Wyoming. And they're far from friendly. The general theme: He was just an appetizer -- you're the main course. Welcome to Amerika!
8057. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:30 PM PDT
The Washington Post, June 19, 1993
Beware Stiffer Sentences for Thought Crimes
Nat Hentoff
In 1972, Justice Thurgood Marshall -- in Chicago Police Department v. Mosely -- said with characteristic directness: "Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content."
But the Constitution is a living document, and according to the Rehnquist Court on June 11, if a crime has been committed to the accompaniment of bigoted thought, the prison sentence for the crime itself can be doubled or tripled because of that message. If the same crime is caused by avarice or simple cruelty, however, there will be no extra prison time.
The unanimous decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell validates similar "enhancement" statutes in 26 other states and the District of Columbia. Inexorably, there will now be more such laws -- including federal lengthening of sentences for those already punished for a crime and then punished again for the same crime if the motivation was deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic or among other prohibited thoughts added by well-meaning legislators.
8058. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:31 PM PDT
Kenosha, Wisc., is where Todd Mitchell incited some of his black friends to beat a white teenager because of his color. Mitchell could have gotten five more years in addition to the two on the books for his involvement in aggravated battery. Nothing wrong with that added sentence for bigotry, said Justice Rehnquist in reviewing the case, because the Wisconsin statute "is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment." Only conduct? As the chief justice himself notes, Mitchell first said, "Theregoes a white boy! Go get him!"
Reading the decision, a commander in the Kenosha police force, James P. Farley, told the New York Times that Rehnquist and his colleagues have made him nervous. "I'm very fearful of the concept of thought police," Farley said.
So was the Ohio Supreme Court in another hate crime case, State v. Wyant (1992). That court struck down a statute adding to the penalties for various criminal actions if they were done "by reason of" race, color, religion or national origin.
8059. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:31 PM PDT
Unlike Justice Rehnquist and his unanimous colleagues in the Mitchell case -- who did not notice the slippery slope opening below them -- Ohio's highest court said: "The question before us is not whether the government can regulate the conduct itself ... The issue is whether the government can punish the conduct more severely based on the thought that motivates the behavior ...
"By enacting [the hate crime statute], the state has infringed on the basic liberties of thought and speech. Once the proscribed act is committed, the government criminalizes the underlying thought by enhancing the penalty based on viewpoint. If the legislature can enhance a penalty for crimes committed 'by reason of' racial bigotry, why not 'by reason of' opposition to abortion, war, the elderly (or any other political or moral viewpoint)?"
But what about the laws against discrimination in employment and housing? In those cases, said the Ohio court, "it is the act of discrimination that is targeted, not the motive." And when there is proof of motive, the penalty is not increased because of that.
The state of Ohio appealed the Wyant decision, and because of what has happened in Wisconsin v. Mitchell the Supreme Court is certain to reverse the much more thoughtful reasoning in Wyant and send it back to be interred.
Rehnquist made a point -- as do all the enthusiasts for hate crime statutes -- that these laws are especially needed because bias crimes are "thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm." Its victims suffer "distinct emotional harms" more damaging than those suffered by other victims.
8060. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:32 PM PDT
In my neighborhood in New York, a considerable number of people have been mugged -- and one has been killed -- by diverse predators during the past years. Some have been attacked because they are gay, others because they're black and most because the perpetrators were equal-opportunity muggers. They just wanted money.
The Anti-Defamation League has conjured up and successfully implanted the concept of hate crime laws in many states. It has not demonstrated, however, that viciously battered victims of criminals motivated solely by greed suffer any less than black or gay victims. And what kind of message is sent by such laws to those in any community who are in fact random targets of violence? Are
their lives less valuable to society or themselves because criminals have stalked them without any concern for who they are?
This is equal protection of the laws?
Hate crime statutes -- and the Supreme Court's empty affirmation of them -- exemplify Justice Louis Brandeis's warning: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal -- well-meaning but without understanding."
8061. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:34 PM PDT
Frankly, I'm completely undecided about this hate crimes law thing. Both sides have presented reasonable arguments (except Calgal's bizarre claim). Could the proponents tell me whether they value it primarily as a symbolic statement? Or do they really feel an extra penalty for "hate crime" would add an extra deterrent effect?
8062. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:36 PM PDT
Cal: I actually suspected you were using AA law as an analogy. The criticisms of AA stem from the perception that AA laws cause organizations to lower their hiring or admittance standards for targeted groups, and therefore members of those groups hired into the organization are perceived as less qualified.
On the other hand, Civil Rights laws simply created penalties for certain discriminatory behaviors, and are quite similar to the effect of hate crimes laws, which *increase* penalties. As I said, I am not aware of any serious argument that Civil Rights laws were detrimental to protected classes and that the perception that these groups needed to be protected encouraged bigotry against them.
8064. wilkpaul - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
Does anyone know which justices voted to reaffirm the ordiance in Cincinnati prohibiting the city from enacting protections for gays?
I don't see the Court's reasoning. Did they not strike down the referendum by the voters in Ohio which basically was the very same thing (prohibiting gay rights statures protecting equal rights for gays)?
I was very disappointed this ruling came out during the sad week of the death of the young college student at the University of Wyoming at the hands of hateful bigoted goon squads.
8065. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
Hentoff?!?!?! Don't get me started. Evil, evil man. AND his wife. "Liberals"? Yeah -- like David Horowitz. I don't want to go any further with hentoff, cause it gets REAL personal.
8066. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
Pseudo,
"except Calgal's bizarre claim"
I SAID it was flaky, dammit. It's my *job* to do point out the weird stuff. Otherwise the arguments get so (sigh) typical.
But it's also difficult to utterly refute. Other than the obvious, "No, it's NOT!"
8067. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:39 PM PDT
cllrdr
I shall place him on the tractor list.
8068. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:40 PM PDT
Niner wrote
"Third, is it worse to throw a stone at a synagogue because you hate Jews or throw a stone at stranger because you are simply angry?"
Yes it is worse to through a stone at a Synagogue, Jews are an identified target group.
Spud wrote,
"Rather, these laws are intended <..SNIP..> to reassure the victimized groups that their full participation in democratic society is valued enough to warrant added protection."
This is key IMO, that society is saying that we insist that you be able to fully act in society.
Boba wrote, "In other words, you can't justify the extra punishment by saying the hate crime is a terrorist crime against a whole group, and yet never prove that the criminal actually intended to do so."
This is an interesting point, does there need to be an active conspiracy against the group as a whole, with the victim as a part of this conspiracy? I disagree, the point is to "protect" the individual members of the group and so help to prevent the group from being intimidated, not to prevent a mass assault on the group as a whole. So, it is enough to show that the reason for the individual assault was the association with a targetted group; it is not necessary to show that the intent of the assault was to terrorize the group.
vK
8069. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:41 PM PDT
Boba: I'd just hoped to pop in quickly for this debate because I'm still overextended, so you'll have to forgive if I fail to respond after this. Others here seem to be picking up your points fine. But I'll answer your questions quickly.
First, about the difference in reported crimes vs. prosecuted crimes -- no one I'm aware of has statistics on the latter, and it may well be irrelevant, since so many of these crimes go uncharged and unpunished. However, I consider it highly likely that there is a rough correlation between the reporting of the crimes and the prosecution. Indeed, the number of anti-white crimes is probably as high as it is largely because of the number of prosecutions in this area.
More to the point, there is no substance to your suspicion that anti-white hate crimes go unpursued more than anti-black or anti-Semitic crimes. Rather the opposite seems to have occurred. As I mentioned previously, many black civil-rights groups have observed a considerable eagerness on the part of (mostly conservative) prosecutors and law-enforcement officers to charge minorities with anti-white hate-crimes violations, and for judges to hand down stiffer sentences in these crimes. This may be why you'll find the reporting of anti-white crimes to be higher than anti-Semitic or gay-bashing crimes (in addition to the fact that bashed gays tend to go hide when they're the victims, since they believe the law won't protect them).
Secondly, the utterance of slurs or other prejudicial remarks against the group in question -- or participating in similar kinds of bigotry -- actually is considered prima facie evidence of the intent to target the larger group when the individual crime is committed. I haven't the specific references handy on this, but I'm fairly certain the precedent on this was set by the Supreme Court.
8070. JJBiener - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:41 PM PDT
109 - There are several reasons to have hate crime legislation. Some have already been covered. The most persuasive reasons for me are as follows.
First, why a crime is committed is important. Motive should absolutely be considered when assessing the punishment for a crime. If a man kills his wife and her lover in a jealous rage, it is a very different crime from stalking and killing a gay couple. Painting a swastika or burning a cross is a different crime than painting grafitti. Hate crimes are meant to instill fear in both the victim and the group they belong to.
Second, as a society it is acceptable for us to assess the likelyhood a criminal will repeat his crime and act accordingly. The assumption of hate crime legislation is that the person is a higher risk to society than someone who commits a crime for other reasons.
Hate crimes are aimed at more than the just the victim. They are aimed at and represent a threat to the group the victim belongs to. A different response is warranted.
8071. thomasd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:43 PM PDT
I feel that hate crime laws, being that they are largely limited by their nature to increasing the severity of punishment for actions that are already covered under existing criminal statutes, have extremely limited deterrent value, if any. However, the enforcement of such laws may provide some satisfaction to people who feel that they have been or are likely to be victimized by a hate crime.
8072. wilkpaul - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:43 PM PDT
My above post should have asked: "Did they not strike down the referendum by the voters in Colorado" instead of Ohio which prohibited cities from enacting gay rights statues.
Too much legalese lately. Please post so the general public can follow. Thanks.
8073. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:44 PM PDT
109109:
Perhaps you could ask Mr Hentoff if he thinks the existence of different different levels of punishment for different types of murder "send the message" that the lives of people killed without premeditation are worth less than the lives of those killed with premeditation.
The argument he makes is the same one you made earlier and the response is the same.
And the fact that the Supreme Court decision in the Mitchell case was unanimous, shared by the court's most conservative and most liberal justices, should tell you something about the quality of Hentoff's constitutional analysis.
8075. JoeTiernan - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:44 PM PDT
Question: Can you impeach a "part-time" president? Clinton doesn't like Washington but he sure loves AirForce 1. I'm amazed the man has no shame.
8076. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:45 PM PDT
PE - I support them for the symbolic link they make between society and the protected groups. In the long run I believe that this symbolic link leads to a lessening of hate based crimes, since these are crimes of group think. If the group mentality is challenged, if society symbolically links to the targeted groups then the tendency to commit the assaults is lessened.
8077. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:46 PM PDT
Niner wrote,
"Third, is it worse to throw a stone at a synagogue because you hate Jews or throw a stone at stranger because you are simply angry?"
VK responded
"Yes it is worse to through a stone at a Synagogue, Jews are an identified target group."
109109 rejoins
So what? Poor people are an identified group (easy pickings) under far greater threat from criminals. And if you throw a rock at my car, motorists are cowed as a group, as am I individually.
There must be more. Simply being identified as something cannot be enough to merit special criminal protection.
8079. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:47 PM PDT
109109
I once read someone argue that defacing a synogogue with antisemitic graffiti is nothing more than a property crime, no different from, say, spray-painting a Rodin statue. Otherwise, in this writer's opinion, the intent rather than the action is punished, and that's tantamount to thought control. Do you agree with this?
8080. JoeTiernan - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:47 PM PDT
Question: Can you impeach a "part-time" president? Clinton doesn't like Washington but he sure loves AirForce 1. I'm amazed the man has no shame.
8081. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:47 PM PDT
PE: I view it as largely symbolic, with a slight added effect of locking the thugs up a little bit longer.
Legal action in the aftermath of the Shepard death, even if the legal change is in itself inconsequential, serves as a statement by elected officials, that anti-gay hatred, and the spouting of rhetoric which encourages same, has detrimental consequences.
I don't think the future of our country, or even the future of gay rights, hinges on a hate crime vote, but every tiny step helps.
8082. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:49 PM PDT
JJ
As others have before you, you have confused motive (why someone commits a crime) and state of mind/intent (premeditation, impairment, insanity, diminished capacity).
If you commit first-degree murder, as a rule, the law doesn't care why you killed (because you hate blacks or because you wanted the insurance proceeds from your black husband).
8083. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:49 PM PDT
pseudo:
"Could the proponents tell me whether they value it primarily as a symbolic statement? Or do they really feel an extra penalty for "hate crime" would add an extra deterrent effect?"
I'm not sure what you mean by a "symbolic statement" independent of deterrence. I do believe the laws are likely to deter hate crime. I also believe that a higher sentence for such crimes is just.
8084. JoeTiernan - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:50 PM PDT
Am I in the wrong forum. I thought this thread was about "impeachment" of Clinton.
8085. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:50 PM PDT
Message #8076: I think a symbolic statement is a perfectly reasonable thing for a law to make, but I'm not sure how hate crime laws reduce "group think". They seem more likely to foster the opposite.
8086. wilkpaul - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:50 PM PDT
JoeTiernan:
Yeah, Clinton loves Air Force One just a little bit less than Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Richard Nixon did. Conservatives would make better sense with the voters if they stuck to real issues instead of phony ones like how much time the President travels. Voters can see through that hypocritical allegation just as they could see through the hypocrisy of crucifying Bill Clinton for marital infidelity while looking the other way when the adultery is committed by Republicans such as Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich or George Bush.
(I better not talk about Republican adultery or allegations of adultery against REPUBLICANS, or else the House GOP leadership will call for an FBI inverstigation.) You see, its only President Clinton that is allowed to be dragged through the mud or whose private life is subject to microscopic examination by a team of prosecutors at the cost of 40 million dollars.)
8087. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:51 PM PDT
Von Kreeden:
What I'm saying is that you cannot justify these laws by saying the crime constitutes a terrorist attempt to strike fear into an entire group and YET NOT PROVE an attempt to do such. That's like slapping me with an extra penalty for attempting to undermine the capitalist system by stealing money. "But I didn't intend to undermine anything!" I'd shout. "Doesn't matter," the law would be saying back to me, "We're going to punish you for trying to undermine the capitalist system, and we're not even going to PROVE you were trying to do it. We're just going to presume it."
Hate laws CANNOT be justified on this ground. In our system, if you want to punish somebody for attempting to achieve an effect, you have to prove they intended to do so. There would be nothing wrong with having a crime of "Minority Terrorism" but you have to prove such a crime took place.
The Supreme Court did not justify hate laws on this ground. It just said these crimes cause more harm to society, blah blah blah.
I'm just saying Spudboy can't justify hate-crime laws on this ground either.
8088. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:52 PM PDT
Elliot, by "symbolic statement", I mean that the law would enshrine an added margin of social disapproval, regardless of whether that added margin would actually deter anyone from committing a hate crime.
There is nothing symbolic about deterrence.
8089. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:53 PM PDT
Niner - I was too brief regarding Jews being an identified target group. In our society there are elements, to some extent organized, who identify Jews as a legitimate target for destruction because they are Jews. This is not the case with the group 'motorists' or 'poor'. Now, in Sao Paolo, Brazil, being young male and homeless might fit as a member of a targeted group, as members of this group are regularly assaulted because of their membership.
8090. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:53 PM PDT
PE
"I once read someone argue that defacing a synogogue with antisemitic graffiti is nothing more than a property crime, no different from, say, spray-painting a Rodin statue. Otherwise, in this writer's opinion, the intent rather than the action is punished, and that's tantamount to thought control. Do you agree with this?"
For purposes of history, the Rodin is of greater concern. For purposes of sensitivity, sign me up for the synagogue.
For purposes of the criminal law, I agree, though I'm less interested in the "thought control" aspect than the arbitrary nature/prudential consderations attendant to hate crime laws.
8091. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:54 PM PDT
109109 to JJ:
"As others have before you, you have confused motive (why someone commits a crime) and state of mind/intent (premeditation, impairment, insanity, diminished capacity)."
No, he hasn't. He recognizes that motive, like premeditation and intent and remorse and other mental states, bear on the severity of the crime.
8093. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:55 PM PDT
PE:"I'm not sure how hate crime laws reduce "group think". They seem more likely to foster the opposite."
I think this is an excellent point. I would prefer to establish a strong societal consensus that it is wrong to hate people on the basis of sexual orientation just as we have (mostly) succeeded in establishing one on race. I think hate crimes laws are an attempt to create this consensus by serving as an excuse to talk about and discuss the issues, and serve as a collective statement by society as to the wrongness of homophobia.
8094. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:57 PM PDT
VK
"I was too brief regarding Jews being an identified target group. In our society there are elements, to some extent organized, who identify Jews as a legitimate target for destruction because they are Jews. This is not the case with the group 'motorists' or 'poor'. Now, in Sao Paolo, Brazil, being young male and homeless might fit as a member of a targeted group, as members of this group are regularly assaulted because of their membership."
These elements exist. In light of their paltry damage (a mere 10,000 crimes a year), I think a more endangered group is the poor, chosen solely for their poverty and proximity.
Of course, I don't believe anyone should be chosen. Smacking me on the head because you hate Catholics or because I have $5 still hurts my head, still scares other folks, and requires some momentary hate (or dislike, although I am sure there are jolly synagogue vandals - good luck on that prosecution).
8095. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:58 PM PDT
Rask,
I wasn't "using" the argument at all--you brought it up. I was just responding based on what I thought about your argument. Truly, before you mentioned it I hadn't considered it at all.
If you go *very* out there meta, this phrase (as perception by people, not reality), "therefore members of those groups hired into the organization are perceived as less qualified" is analogous to what I was talking about, yes. But in AA's example, the perception is angering the bigot who perceives the group as getting special assistance. In this case, the perception is reassuring the bigot about the rightness of his cause--so many people believe group X is bad that the government has to step in to protect them. As I said, I hadn't considered AA before. And I'm not criticizing either AA *or* hate crimes based on this, just commenting at the perception that is arguably created.
"On the other hand, Civil Rights laws simply created penalties for certain discriminatory behaviors, and are quite similar to the effect of hate crimes laws, which *increase* penalties. "
Now see, I just don't get this at all. And I don't want to spend too much time arguing *your* analogy. (g) But you seem to be equating "discriminatory behavior" in the CR case with "crime" in HL. But there is a supporting structure to penalize crimes already. Whereas civil rights laws created the structure where none had been before. So I would never argue that CR laws were detrimental. I just don't see the analogy.
IOW and IMO, CR is equivalent to the penal code. AA is equivalent to hate crimes laws. The latter two both are *a* way of addressing inequities of treatment. And both could conceivably create problems of perception. As I said before, this was an intentional stretch and it's not high up on the reasons I dislike hate crimes. I only mention it because of the general reliance on the "societal values" arg
8096. arkymalarky - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:58 PM PDT
Excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but I didn't read all the posts. One of the biggest reasons to support hate crime legislation imo is that the perpetrators of hate crimes are usually not just the isolated violent criminal. These folks have an ideology which they are promoting with their violence and many likely are parts of larger groups who support violent actions against people they *hate* for no other reason than color, orientation, religion, etc. It's really beyond an attack, it's an act of terrorism, meant to terrorize other members of the group the violence is directed against.
8097. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:00 PM PDT
arky
In the case of Wyoming, I doubt it. The boys attacked two men - non-homosexual - earlier in the evening, cutting one with a razor. Of course, the two men threatened retaliation, so the cowardly wolves moved on to the lone, defenseless victim.
8098. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:02 PM PDT
Cal: "But there is a supporting structure to penalize crimes already. Whereas civil rights laws created the structure where none had been before. So I would never argue that CR laws were detrimental. I just don't see the analogy."
You don't see an analogy between increasing the penalty for discrimination from 0 to 10 and increasing the penalty for a hate crime from 15 to 20?
8099. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:05 PM PDT
pseudo:
Well, I see no value in symbolism that has no effect on anything. But I don't see deterrence of crime as the only value of the message that gays, blacks, etc. should be treated with respect and dignity. That has benefits beyond simply deterring crimes against them. Indeed, I think the opposition from the religious right to hate crime laws that include sexual orientation reflects the way the laws "normalize" homosexuality.
8100. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:05 PM PDT
Niner, "I am sure there are jolly synagogue vandals - good luck on that prosecution" LOL! oops, is that supporting hate crimes? oh dear.
The difference between being hit on the head because you have $5 and being hit on the head because you are Catholic is precisely that; on the one hand you have something, on the other you are something.
8101. JJBiener - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:07 PM PDT
Elliot - You and me on the same side of an issue. Who would have thought it?
8102. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:10 PM PDT
JJ: I know. I'll alert the media.
8103. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:12 PM PDT
109109 (Message 8090)
Well, (the best) art is more worth protecting than most people.....
"For purposes of the criminal law, I agree, though I'm less interested in the "thought control" aspect than the arbitrary nature/prudential consderations attendant to hate crime laws."
So your opposition is based, then, on the difficulty of satisfactorily determining whether a crime was genuinely intended to target a protected group, or was simply a random act which happened to victimise a person in the protected category? Is this "uncertainty principle" what you consider infeasible & impractical and possibly a source of injustice?
If so, it seems a reasonble objection. Have the proponents of hate crime laws answered this? And if so, where are the posts?
8104. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:13 PM PDT
Rask,
"You don't see an analogy between increasing the penalty for discrimination from 0 to 10 and increasing the penalty for a hate crime from 15 to 20?"
Well, then you get into the deal of punishing blonde haters. If we say as a society that it is worse to kill out of hate for an attribute than it is because of greed and anger, then the hatred is the operative word. If the fear in a community matters, then all communities matter. It is when you single out the communities that are to be protected that the CR analogy stops being relevant and AA kicks in.
It's not that I'm arguing for extra time for blonde haters. My feelings about hate crimes, as I said, are identical to Niner's. But in the first place, I like clean systems. So if we are to punish hatred, I'd rather it be established evenhandedly. And by *not* singling out groups, we're removing any possibility of contributing to the perception that certain groups are *so* hated that a bigot feels righteous because so many people agree with him/her. (with all due acknowledgements and caveats about the likelihood of this.)
8105. MrSocko - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:13 PM PDT
Message 8079
Intent counts for a lot when it comes to crime. Manslaughter is not in the same category of murder, even though a manslaughterer may cause somebody to die in more ghastly circumstances than a garden variety murderer. Killing cops in the line of duty is worse than killing Joe Front Porches.
I fail to see how allowing specific punishments to fit anti-homosexual crimes is an assault on "freedom of speech." In the current American climate -- where Kenneth Starr is acting as a cheerleader for anybody who has ever victimized another because of his private sexuality -- I believe it's crucial have laws that stamp on these lowlifes with the greatest zeal.
8106. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:15 PM PDT
Ack!
"hate crime laws"--not hate crimes.
Although I imagine Niner and I feel the same about hate crimes.
8107. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:15 PM PDT
PE/Niner - I agree, the crime needs to be demonstrably intended to harm a segment (individual/structure) of a targeted group. That the victim was black and the attacker white is not enough, it must be provable that the attack occured because the victim was black.
8108. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:17 PM PDT
109109, You didn't respond to the point that important convictions were achieved via the federal civil rights law in cases where juries refused to convice under the criminal law. My impression is that these convictions of murderers of civil rights workers, in Mississippi and elsewhere in the South, were significant to the success of the extension of civil rights to African Americans. The situation of gays today is analogous, in my opinion, and in some ways even worse with the Supreme Court's decision upholding state anti-sodomy laws and the selective enforcement of those laws. Your "content-neutral" theory of criminal law makes no practical or theoretical sense to me. You and ValGal and the Saudis can have it.
8109. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:17 PM PDT
Cal - If a person kills people because they are blond then the person is simply psychotic. If a person kills people because they are Jewish, then there is an underlying societal element to the psychosis; Jews are recognized as hate targets in our culture, blonds are not.
8110. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:19 PM PDT
Socko said: "Intent counts for a lot when it comes to crime."
No kidding. The writer I was talking about, whose name I can't remember, was arguing that intent should not matter, EXCEPT inasmuch as it is discernible in the actions.
8111. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:19 PM PDT
PE: The "uncertainty principle" you suggest simply does not exist in the case of hate-crime laws. You cannot charge someone with such a crime simply on the basis of their respective races or other affiliations; you cannot file charges if a victim merely falls into a protected category. Perps are typically only charged with these crimes (and can only be convicted of them) if there is evidence that the victim was attacked because he or she belonged to the larger group. This evidence can take many forms, but the Wyoming case provides plenty of instances.
I have in fact been trying to explain this to 109s, but to little avail.
8112. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:19 PM PDT
I must leave. I'll get back to your posts PE and VK later.
And no, VK, I do not believe you committed a hate crime, but it is quite conceivable that your post could be Exhibit A against you - from the mouth of the perp who threw a rock at a synagogue. So, keep your hands at your sides. (g)
8113. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:20 PM PDT
pseudo:
It is a reasonable objection. But it's also an objection to civil rights laws ( "How do *know* so-and-so was fired because he was black?") and to first degree murder laws ("How do you *know* so-and-so planned to kill his wife ahead of time?") But I see no reason why it is any more compelling an objection to hate crime legislation than to those other kinds of law. The importance of not falsely convicting someone is why we place the burden of proof on the prosecution.
8114. arkymalarky - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:21 PM PDT
But 109, when a terrorist attack occurs the US puts out every possible effort to see who if anyone besides the individuals who committed the actual act is involved. Who are these kids associated with? Likely you're right in this particular case, but good legislation should allow a thorough examination of the criminal's involvements and motives outside simple hatred. And even if there is no larger group involved, the knowledge that digging will be done and that any others indirectly involved will be prosecuted as well, in any case where it's been determined that the act was a hate crime, might help in reducing the influence of some of these groups on their violent members.
8115. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:22 PM PDT
wonk
I shall respond to you as well, but only if you'll promise to be a little more polite