New York judge: Hate crimes don’t require any actual hate
posted at 6:42 pm on August 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Go figure. How do you commit a hate crime sans hate? Set out to rob someone, choose your victim from a gay chat room, then commit the crime when he shows up to the meeting you’ve arranged. Here’s the statute:
485.00 Legislative findings.
The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts involving violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon bias and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in recent years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and justly referred to as “hate crimes”, victims are intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs…
485.05 Hate crimes.
1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and…:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct…
There are two different theories of hate crime statutes: deterring bigots whose prejudice motivates them to commit crime and protecting “vulnerable communities” who might be targeted more often by criminals generally. Usually they dovetail, but not in this case. As I read the legislative findings, which are there precisely to help guide courts in interpreting the statute, New York State is pretty clearly signing on to theory 1. The court, however, seems to be focusing exclusively on the hate crimes statute itself to sign on to theory 2, with the requisite “belief or perception” about gays, I guess, being that they’re more willing to meet a stranger from a chat room face to face for sex. Under the same theory, presumably, someone who snatches an old lady’s purse because he thinks she’s less likely to be able to chase him down is also guilty of a hate crime, as is a con man who sweeps into a Jewish neighborhood and goes door to door pretending to sell copies of the Torah since, after all, by choosing the Jewish holy book he’s pretty much guaranteeing that the people who let him in and end up being victimized will be Jewish. Which is to say, these are all really crimes of opportunity based on the perp’s use of stereotypes to predict how people will behave; the only thing that makes them hate crimes and other offenses not hate crimes is whether the stereotype he’s playing off of just so happens to touch a protected classification. Without evidence that he chose one stereotype over another because of some animus towards a group or its behavior, it’s completely arbitrary.
So for instance, if the purse snatcher’s next target is a fat woman because she, like grandma, probably won’t be able to catch him, it’s no hate crime. Why? Because the statute doesn’t cover weight, just age. If the con man gets himself a list of VFW donors and shows up at their homes pretending to sell flags instead of Korans, it’s no hate crime. Why? Because the statute doesn’t cover military service, just religion. One could argue that senior citizens and Jews are “vulnerable communities” who need the statute’s protection whereas overweight people and vets don’t, but in that case the statute is ridiculously overbroad in not naming those “vulnerable” groups specifically. It’s not “sexual orientation” that needs special protection, it’s gays; but under this moronic law, in theory, the suspects in this case would also be guilty of a hate crime if they had gone in to the straight chat room and lured some guy to a meeting with a photo of a hot blonde. Constitutionally the statute probably can’t name specific groups, though, so we’re left with an idiotic legal fiction in which a law that’s meant to protect only certain groups has to pretend it’s protecting all of them and ends up punishing people who aren’t even prejudiced against the groups it’s trying to protect.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Considering how all crimes involve a hate towards one’s fellow Man, this is arguably just the Left’s twisted logic coming full-circle.
Damian G. on August 4, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Another political third-rail; hate crime legislation is perfectly protected. Imagine the tar-storm that would come at any legislator who tries to rescind such laws. It’s liberal sharia.
laelaps on August 4, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I’m all for law and order but this legalistic hair-splitting is freaking insane. How about some common sense in these statutes?
infidel4life on August 4, 2007 at 7:06 PM
“the law is an ass…”
AP you are really good at interpreting these laws, i enjoy reading the analysis even if i dont always agree with it.
zane on August 4, 2007 at 7:09 PM
By that logic, auto theft doesn’t require the actual stealing of a car.
Kowboy on August 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
This whole “hate crimes” stuff is just self serving BS.
A man is hit over the head and is taken to the hospital.
The Doctor says to the patient after examining him:
Doctor to patient: I have got good news and bad news.
Version one: The good news is that your being hit over the head had nothing whatsoever to do with your race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. The bad news is that you are going to die and there is nothing we can do except ease the pain some.
Version two: The bad news is that your being hit over the head had everything to do with your race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. The good news is that you are going to be just fine.
Between version one and version two, people who believe in “hate crimes”, if they really mean it, and are hit over the head, sure better hope for version one for themselves.
MB4 on August 4, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Makes sense to me since Islamic outrage over these “crimes” never required any actual or genuine outrage either.
So basically, what it comes down to is, we pretend like the “offenders” have committed a criminal act, and the Muslims pretend to be outraged.
After all, any old excuse to justify Jihad, ya’know.
CyberCipher on August 4, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Hate crimes statutes are undeniably absurd and should be stricken from the books as fast as humanly possible.
Metro on August 4, 2007 at 7:42 PM
So, I have every right to be overly offended (unless I’m a Christian of course), but no right to be offensive. Where’s the fun in that?
All crime is motivated by hate. It’s just a ploy to shut up who you want to shut up.
Ordinary1 on August 4, 2007 at 7:45 PM
It is plain and simple.
Hate crime laws are just examples of affirmative action.
It is subjective application of jurisprudence.
TheSitRep on August 4, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Even more plain and simple.
Some folks are must more equal than others.
Strange how hate crime laws come so very close to being hate crimes themselves.
So if you hit some gay guy you may go to prison but if you hit me you’ll likely just get a fine.
Buzzy on August 4, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Even more plain and simple.
Some folks are must more equal than others.
Strange how hate crime laws come so very close to being hate crimes themselves.
So if you hit some gay guy you may go to prison but if you hit me you’ll likely just get a fine.
Buzzy on August 4, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Yeah, this is totally nuts. Your post is so perfect I wouldn’t know what to add to it.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 8:27 PM
So then, is it a hate crime to throw a pie in the face of someone with whom you disagree with politically?
Right Tracker on August 4, 2007 at 9:07 PM
If you hit me I’ll hit you right back.
Fines? We don’t need no stinking fines!
infidel4life on August 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Yeah hate crimes don,t have to be hate.
Let me take you back in time to the Clinton years.
Remember it,s THE SERIOUSNESS of the charge,
not the CHARGE itself.
canopfor on August 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Hate crime or not? I once took a philosophy class in University by the most useless tenured professor Saskatchewan has ever produced (and there’s quite a list). He purposely gave me bad grades because I told him that I believed in God and was, in fact, a Christian. If I recall correctly, he TOLD me that was the reason he was being a jack(etc.) to me.
Now because the man was purposefully a bigot towards me in my choice of religion and in fact, my grades suffered because of his hatred of Christians. Was he just a prejudiced moron or could I in fact have him charged with a hate crime? He screwed me over. Now granted it was years ago and I am actually more useful than him (Nurses are more useful than “Philosophers,” right?). But based on the simple fact that he hated me based on my religion, I am allowed to charge him with a hate crime, right? I want a higher grade, darn it!
I totally think I should sue. ;)
mjk on August 4, 2007 at 9:23 PM
“…selects the PERSON..” Does that imply plural such as a group I wonder? “Person” is repeated later towards the end of the segment. The first section uses “victim” nor victims. However, judges are in/famous for putting their own spin on things. Did this guy single out a specific person? I do not recall reading if he did or not? Seems to me that a good lawyer should be able to find way/s around it. I hope!!!!(Possible outcome?? future flag burners, Bible desecrators and such could possibly have their feet held to the fire if this case sets some kind of precedent–possible silver lining in this foolishness?)
jeanie on August 4, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Just wondering, if someone was running a scam on a Muslim by appearing to try to help fund a jihadist organization, would this person be charged with a hate crime for larceny for trying to take money from the Muslim who is wanting to give money to fund terrorist actions.
dawgyear on August 4, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Of course it’s arbitrary, hate crimes law has to be, because if proof of actual hate were required; litigation of such issues would be reduced by 90% and nobody wants that.
In our stupid upon stupid trial lawyer created tort law (civil) system, any slip of the tongue is hate speech and we’re all culpable.
Speakup on August 4, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I’ve never agreed with you more Allah. That’s a very impressive analysis. It illustrates the folly of “hate crime” legislation better than anything I’ve read to date. Excellent!
Maxx on August 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Hate Crime is a wedge issue how’s ultimate goal is hate speach meaning anything that speaks out against anything liberal which will grow up to be hate thought.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 4, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Constitutionally the statute probably can’t name specific groups, though, so we’re left with an idiotic legal fiction in which a law that’s meant to protect only certain groups has to pretend it’s protecting all of them and ends up punishing people who aren’t even prejudiced against the groups it’s trying to protect.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” - Sir Walter Scott
MB4 on August 4, 2007 at 11:54 PM
AP,
Although I fully agree with your policy analysis, as a matter of law this is irrelevant:
Under conservative theory of statutory and constitutional interpretation, legislative findings are neither nor there. As Justice Scalia will tell you, “It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver.” (See “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” p. 17.) In another words, the language of the statute is our guide.
The statute here makes it a crime to act “in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding,” inter alia, “sexual orientation.” According to The Times, the defendants selected their victim “because ‘this was an easy way to rob someone,’” this being the victim’s homosexual orientation. That puts the defendants afoul of the statute.
Is the statute good public policy, coherent and just? No, it is not; but under our system of government, that isn’t for the judge to say. It is her task to apply the language of the law to the facts before her.
Affirmed.
paul006 on August 5, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Thoughtcrime double-plus ungood.
mojo on August 5, 2007 at 1:20 AM
I hate crimes made up after the Act.
profitsbeard on August 5, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Not only would that seem to be a “hate crime”, but couldn’t you successfully argue that because of your lower grade you suffered emotional injury to your self-esteem as well as monetary loss?
oldleprechaun on August 5, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Hate is not a crime it is a human emotion. You have as much chance of outlawing hate as love or greed or anger. The emotion is part of being human. People on Wall Street who trade on insider information are not charged with a greed crime. They are charged with a insider trading crime. The emotion that drove their crime was greed should they be given a tougher sentence because of the greed factor?
This is another example of how stupid our leaders are.
Hate is good in its proper context. Hate did not just happen. It is a human emotion that has evolved with humans to protect themselves.
unseen on August 5, 2007 at 7:50 AM
the statute good public policy, coherent and just? No, it is not; but under our system of government, that isn’t for the judge to say. It is her task to apply the language of the law to the facts before her.
Affirmed.
paul006 on August 5, 2007 at 12:14 AM
It is also her task or a jury’s to decide if the law is consititutional or not. (i.e if the law is worth the paper its printed on)
unseen on August 5, 2007 at 7:54 AM
This is insane…… What ever happened to the punishment should fit the crime????
A murder is a murder. It should not matter if the murder victim is of a special interest group. The only time it should matter why the murder occurred would be during the trial (Used to prove motive), not during the sentencing. If you are handing out extra punishment b/c the victim of the crime is a minority or special interest group wouldn’t that count as cruel and unusual punishment? Why should a murder that involves a special interest group get more attention from the District Attorney then if a generic white person is murdered? There is no added deterrent for having hate crime laws in our society. The deterrent is already in place (i.e. capital punishment).
Our juries can’t even get it right when they are trying to simply decide a murder case. Now we are going to make them decide if there was actually a hate crime committed????
INSANE!
ericire12 on August 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Yo Judge. The defendant is accused of bein’ a hater.
Fo’ real?
- The Cat
P.S. 70s bass line.
MirCat on August 5, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Very good point. I would just be happy if they could just get the crime itself decided upon and the criminal prosecuted appropriately, (and I don’t mean rehab!) much less do I care about all the to do, deciding whether it’s a “hate crime” or not.
4shoes on August 5, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Gay rights groups have been a strong force promoting hate crime laws. They do have a strong case for wanting to do something. Gays are probably uniquely in modern America the one group that you are allowed to hate without qualification. Additionally, gay rights want this battle because they think they can win this battle. They may lose marriage amendments at the present time, but many people are willing to assuage their guilt over voting against gay marriage by supporting hate crime laws. Thus, the gay rights groups see hate crime laws as providing a victory which means relevance and funding.
I doubt hate crimes laws are really much use for gays. The key is changing attitudes. Gay marriage and anti-bullying programs in schools really are the key to changing attitudes. Barring deranged forms of homophobia–and some do exist in our society–I can’t see a single good reason to attack anti-bullying programs. However, some people on the right do, and then they wonder why gay men skew left.
Perhaps, one can quibble with the details of what I’m saying, but I still hold that hate crime laws are the current bad compromise between the primitive anti-gay views of the past and the future where gay marriage will happen in fundamentalist Christian churches. Sometimes the intermediate steps suck. There is no straight line to progress. It’s why we need sunset provisions on all our laws to eliminate the silly steps we take in the hope of a better future.
thuja on August 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Hate crimes are bad law because they rely on subjective reality, ie interpretation of the motive for a crime. That lends itself to some creative interpretation. The law should focus on objective reality, what actually happenned.
Tantor on August 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Punish the ACT not the Thought.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 8:36 PM
No, Kowboy, you fail. The hate crime without the hate is still a crime, you see, and should still be punished.
The whole issue boils down fairly simply if common sense is applied. Sadly, as Mark Twain said, common sense just isn’t all that common.
There are crimes which are motivated by a hateful bias. There are other crimes which are motivated by the standard forms of greed or jealousy, not hate of any kind. Sometimes those crimes of greed are carried out using a selection of opportunity that might be accidentally interpreted as a bias. As AP said, picking the overweight lady for a purse-snatching isn’t a hate crime against fat people, it’s a sensible move if the snatcher wants a good head start. Some robbery perp might think that he’d be less likely to have to duke it out with a guy coming out of a gay bar, than the local biker saloon. It proves nothing about a hateful bias against homosexuals, although your fly-by-night Johnny Cochrans will claim that it does.
Are armed robbery, assault and battery, or vandalism any less wrong if no hate condition applies, or any more wrong if any hate condition does apply? No, the crime is the same, the legal handling should be the same. Manufacturing special legal protections for subgroups of society is as anti-American as the law can get.
Freelancer on August 6, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Since we all go through life with bias and prejudice (to any degree), then we should call it Bias Crime just to voice our opinions. Down with the First Amendment! Okay, Two-For-One deal today - take the Second while you’re at it….
/sarc
Double-plus good, mojo! Did you recall that verbatim from school?
I remember my teacher stating in 1984 that “1984 could never exist” in real life..I scoffed at her then, and it’s obviously gotten much worse since then.
Miss_Anthrope on August 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM