/sarc

Thoughtcrime double-plus ungood.
mojo on August 5, 2007 at 1:20 AM

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.

By that logic, auto theft doesn’t require the actual stealing of a car.

Kowboy on August 4, 2007 at 7:15 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.

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.

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

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.

Fo’ real?

- The Cat

P.S. 70s bass line.

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!

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)

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.

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

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?

Although I fully agree with your policy analysis, as a matter of law this is irrelevant:

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.

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.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” – Sir Walter Scott

- The Cat

because of a belief or perception

Without evidence that he chose one stereotype over another because of some animus towards a group or its behavior, it’s completely arbitrary.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

If you hit me I’ll hit you right back.

Fines? We don’t need no stinking fines!