AOL Hot Seat Poll: Do you support hate-crimes legislation?
posted at 8:20 am on May 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
This keys off of my post from yesterday, in which I argue that not only is hate-crimes legislation unconstitutional, but it’s also redundant and self-defeating. Not everyone agrees, of course; my friend Tommy Christopher is helping to lobby to expand the House bill to include even more protected classes of victims.
But this is really an endless loop, and that particular effort underscores Jazz Shaw’s point about the 14th Amendment. Let me pose a hypothetical: if someone murdered a white supremacist specifically because of his political beliefs and color of his skin, wouldn’t that also be a hate crime? Shouldn’t they also be protected under this legislation? Or should the state position itself to approve of certain kinds of hate and not others?
Update: Here’s an even better question. What about crimes committed by neighborhood or family feuds? If I murder my next door neighbor because I hate his guts, shouldn’t I be tried with a hate crime?
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Exactly! And that also makes this a slippery slope argument.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM
That relates to intent, not to feelings. It’s not the presence of the feelings that are taken into account, but the degree to which they prevent deliberation and a formation of intent. You have to focus on objective factors to have a fair legal system. Otherwise people will be prosecuted based on emotions.
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I’ve enjoyed the debate guys, but now must go get the yard work done before my wife commits a hate crime against me.
later
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I don’t think it’s a slippery slope, I just think you have to be careful. You have to be careful when drafting most laws.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Same here.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:50 AM
The intent of this so-called “law” is to give leftist victim groups a tool to silence any opposition. It has nothing to do with justice, and nothing to do with equality. It’s blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer. Plus, it’s cut and dry unconstitutional.
“Shut up or we’ll charge you with hate”
If hate crimes are to be legislated … why not crimes driven by greed? Crimes driven by sex?
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I don’t really think that’s a correct characterization. When you find your wife in bed with another man, you still intend to kill her at that moment, the same as regular manslaughter.
By the way, what about using remorse as a factor during sentencing?
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM
You aptly summarize the purpose of creating a law addressing a “hate crime”. But should that purpose lead to enhanced punishment?
I say “no”. You obviously say “yes”. My reasoning is that all the adjunct reasoning behind motive should arrive at an answer as to mens rea. That a person deliberated before commiting a crime, did it in the heat of the moment (without more than a few seconds of deliberation), or did it totally by accident — all these should play into the deliberation, and not become crimes themselves.
That a person intends to cause terror indicates premeditation in my legal world, and nothing more. If the person committing a terrorist act murders (or intends to murder) hundreds of people, then the crime is the murder or the conspiracy to commit murder, it is not the fear the person intended to inflict. Note that Timothy McVeigh was not charged with a “hate crime”, he was charged with use of explosives and murder. The only motive needed to be proven was premeditation, and McVeigh provided that proof in copious quantities.
To put this into perspective, consider the civil analog. If a person is convicted of a “hate crime”, do you think that the group of people outside the immediate victims have a right to a civil action against him? For example, if a gay person is assaulted because he is gay, does every other gay person in the country have the right to sue the perp because of their claimed fear?
My answer is “no”. Yours?
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM
It has nothing to do with silence. The laws relate to violence. If you’re talking about hate speech, that’s a separate issue.
Crimes driven by greed or sex don’t intimidate groups of people who think they might be next. That is the reason.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Crimes driven by greed or sexual desire are not legislated? Are you kidding?
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM
They don’t? Ever seen a neighborhood where robberies have occurred?
Hang it up. This has nothing to do with “violence” either. The law would intimidate anyone who wants to protest any of the protected victim groups. Any assembly to protest illegal immigration could be construed as “intimidating” to hispanics. Anyone protesting gay marriage could be described as making gays feel “uncomfortable”.
You have no leg to stand on. If our courts were unbiased this should be challenged and thrown out as unconstitutional.
This is a tool designed to silence any opposition. Nothing more. It, in itself is hate.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM
It occurs to me that as a gay Jew, I’d be an excellent spokesman against hate crime laws. The GOP really needs to find more token minority politicians, because they can be useful in political arguments.
thuja on May 2, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Cute, but No, since it is part of the underlayment of the reasoning process of our legal system. Analysing the length of the thought processes leading to a crime is not the same as categorizing the thoughts processed. We have a totally different way of dealing with the categories of thought used in the commission of “thought crimes” — it’s called “diminished capacity” or “insanity”. I, of course, am against “diminished capacity”, since I view the taking of drugs or alcohol (or any other diminishment of capacity due to substance abuse) as being a voluntary action on the part of the person doing so, and a murder while the perp is using marijuana or meth should be treated identically to the same act while he is stone sober.
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM
You know where this is going to end. Look at Canada.
newton on May 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Really? What about the Beltway sniper? Wasn’t his death penalty upheld because his murders amounted to terrorist acts? That is, his sentence was higher than it would have been had he not intended to instill fear of further murders. Isn’t that right?
That’s an excellent question, and I’m not sure what my answer is. I do think that the offender has done something to wrong those people, but I’m not sure whether they should be entitled to collect for it. And of course it would open the door to lots of people suing on the grounds that they were intimidated by a particular crime.
That being said, the fact that there exists a slippery slope and other practical problems on the civil end doesn’t mean it’s not appropriate for criminal law. Are you really saying that when the lynchings of blacks were prevalent that these crimes were not worse than the same crime committed in isolation against a random person? And that they weren’t a problem for society? And that a law that gave a heightened sentence for them (when you could prove it was racially motivated) wouldn’t have been beneficial for society, yet would not have had any of the slippery slope or other problems that exist in your civil scenario?
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Constantly getting crap like “hate crimes,” gay rights parades, gay day at Disneyworld, gay TV and magazines and other gay culture crap shoved at me has made me MORE anti-gay than I would have ever dreamed possible. I doubt I am alone.
Star20 on May 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Let’s say there’s a serial rapist on a school campus. Until he’s caught, women are terrified thinking they could be next.
When caught and convicted is he punished for making women feel they could be next?
No … he’s punished for the act of rape, not what others may have “felt”.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Aren’t ALL crimes “hate-crimes” regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc? And, isn’t that point of our Constitution?…that we are all equal in the eyes of the law?
ocbrat on May 2, 2009 at 12:25 PM
The left attempts to make others more equal … and more powerful, in the eyes of the law.
Of course that makes others less equal, and virtually powerless, but hey, what do they care, that’s their objective anyway.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This isn’t really about “hate crimes”. It’s about “hate speech”. The liberals in Congress know fully well that if they try to mandate speech in any shape or form, people will see the power-grab. Even Americans who don’t know their Constitution fully understand the First Amendment.
But you can’t convict someone for a “hate crime” without admitting their words into evidence. There has to be a history of hating a group of people in order to convict, and only a defendant’s words can provide that history.
Nope. This is all about stuffing a gag in the mouth of the American people in order to control public discourse. La Raza doesn’t like words like “illegal alien” or “invader” so Pelosi and her House-pets pander for the hispanic vote. Wash, rinse, repeat for every other offended special interest group with a voting bloc and an ax to grind.
Murf76 on May 2, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Yeah. They really DO underestimate human nature, don’t they? Last year if you’d have asked me what I think about “gay marriage”, I’d have said.. “meh”.
Now, having witnessed the ugliness they’re willing to engage in, I’ve taken a closer look at it. Today, I see it as just another gambit in the left’s bid to ‘divide and conquer’.
Murf76 on May 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
This is really a pretty stupid question. All crime is hateful to the degree that is violates anothers life, liberty and/or property regardless who commits it; person, institution or government. Trying to single out specific criminal actions as more hateful than others can only result in gross disparities in justice and punishment.
docdave on May 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Hate is hate. You wouldn’t murder someone because you like them or could tolerate them. Hate doesn’t kill either. I hate Obama and he’s still walking around in spite of it.
Hate crimes were supposed to be a mechanism for adding to a sentence that would be insufficient otherwise, which is the wrong way to go and shows how inadequate our sentencing guidelines are. If an assault on a gay or a black man would get someone 18 months in prison, why add an additional 5 to 7 if the victim is gay or black? Because the perpetrator hates gays or blacks?
What if the victim wasn’t any special minority? Just some computer nerd that spoke to a bikers babe in a bar and got his face smashed out back? His perpetrator doesn’t deserve extra time because…he didn’t hate him?
Freaking stupid. I think there was an evolution planned for this hate crime crap, and it’ll all boil down to special sentences for those that don’t fall in line and goose step at the governments command. Anything less than full subservience is a hate crime against the government.
Again, the left wingers that come up with this horseshit don’t think they will ever be persecuted under it, that’s why they do it.
Spiritk9 on May 2, 2009 at 1:23 PM
There is no court on the planet capable of evaluating and judging an emotion.
YiZhangZhe on May 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM
This legislative stupidity will end, when every democrat/progressive/socialist/pinko is voted out of congress. Then, returned back to “We The People” in the Constitution.
byteshredder on May 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Its like a subset of affirmative action isn’t it? And its not objective. Two things a law should never be, subjective and specific to a group of people. Its like trying to legislate thought. If we have to live with it, it would be great to see it used in rape cases and against abortion. We need a right-wing ACLU.
mph on May 2, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Don’t the current laws take into account aggravating factors/circmstances regarding punishment already?
mossberg500 on May 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Yes, but they don’t intimidate right wingers into shutting the hell up.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Please remember that there are gay people like me who called their congressman to ask him to vote against hate crime legislation–though it was a hopeless waste of time.
In terms of the marriage issue, it would be rather remarkable if some of the advocate weren’t overzealous. The gay marriage issue brings into the political sphere many gay people who just aren’t interested in politics. People who get dragged into politics by a single issue like that are often morons and really should avoid politics. The gay political leaders benefit from firing these people up and telling them that should have had their equality five years ago. Of course, they won’t be respectful of other people’s ideas. The good news is that these people will go away when they get gay marriage. I doubt that they will even vote! There are many stupid people who shouldn’t bother to vote.
thuja on May 2, 2009 at 3:14 PM
The left is in a hurry to get “hate-crimes” legislation on the books because they don’t have very long until their policies will have driven the people to string them up from lampposts.
cthulhu on May 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM
You are laser-beam accurate. In my eyes this is clearly oppression and exploitation at work, prior to a future Election Day. It doesn’t matter if it is a gay politician or a straight ideological community leader firing these people up. Further, it doesn’t matter if it is a cultural or racial issue. Firing up the uniformed with a single issue creates a mental dichotomy.
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Thanks for doing that and posting it here. At the very least, I hope your posting wasn’t a waste of time, but will help some people better appreciate your point of view.
Loxodonta on May 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM
So the question is not stupid but actually is the point.
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I hate this hate crime nonsense… especially in its newest iteration.
Uh, oh….I guess I’m guilty of a hate crime now.
I’m going to hate being in prison.
Oops, there I go again.
I hate it when that happens…
oops.
Now I’m a three times offender.
Guess that means life in the chain gang.
I hate having to ‘make little ones out of big ones’ with a sledgehammer.
Oops. I guess that means execution.
I hate it when that happens.
LegendHasIt on May 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM
His penalty was indeed upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court on the reasoning that he committed a terrorist act. I do not know enough about Virginia state law to follow the reasoning, but I disagree with the finding. The finding was made on the basis of a note Mr. Muhammad wrote demanding 10 million dollars to halt the sniping — in my mind that was not terrorism so much as extortion — something which is indeed covered as a separate crime.
No, the slippery slope and practical problems are at the core of whether it should be criminalized. Criminal law exists to punish people who do bad things to other people. Civil law exists to “make whole” people who have had bad things done to them by other people. They work completely in tandem, like siamese twins. So, if something is barred by criminal law, it has a civil law analogue. Witness what happened to OJ Simpson for an instructive example of that tandem arrangement. In other words, if an act is covered by criminal statute, the bearing of any putative victims to bring a civil action to recover their damages is absolute. Hence, creation of a criminal statute brings with it the probability that lawsuits (and probably class action ones at that) will result from a resultant finding that a “hate crime” occurred.
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Should they?
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 5:53 PM
What an odd question to ask.
Jaibones on May 2, 2009 at 5:53 PM
There you go again – this is the divisiveness that is the root of all prejudices…
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 6:11 PM
The real point is not hate- it’s terror.
That’s why people want hate crime legislation.
Some crimes are committed not just to hurt a person, but to hurt that person and his community or ethnic group.
For example, the lynching of black men by the KKK was as much about terrorizing the general black community as it was about that specific black man.
Instead of “hate crimes” which increases the punishment based on motive, we should have an aggravating element of the crime that increases the penalties it the crime was committed in a way to terrorize a group of people, other than the specific victim.
Sackett on May 2, 2009 at 6:18 PM
And do you know what I hate? I hate it when someone is more clever than I am.
Uh, oh, and oops….I guess I’m going to be joining you in prison. Leave some bread and water.
MB4 on May 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I hate to tell you this MB4….
But there ain’t no bread in Hate Crime Prison. You live off whatever vermin crawls into the cell and lick condensation off the walls for drink.
LegendHasIt on May 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Hell no … that’s my point, hate legislation will.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Certainly the following will be included in hate crime legislation, people or entities upon who, if a crime is committed, will bring on a stiffer, more punitive sentence:
Necrophiliacs.
Pedophiles.
Butchers.
Islamofascist Militant Jihadis.
Homosexuals.
Blacks.
Hispanics.
People with Elephantitus.
Human Embryos.
Human Fetuses.
Human beings with birth defects.
Human beings with various handicaps.
Human beings with missing limbs.
United States military personnel.
United States military personnel who have lost limbs, eyes, ears, and other body parts or functions.
US military personnel who are held captive.
Asians-Orientals, often the brunt of racist jokes by Hispanics and Blacks.
White or Caucasian individuals who are often the victim of hate crimes – violent assault, robbery, harassment, vitriolic taunts, rape, etc.
All animals eaten by human beings – they must be slaughtered before they are eaten (in most cases.)
Catholics.
Evangelical Christians.
Jews.
Hindus.
Sikhs.
Buddhists.
Zoroastrians.
Jains.
Ba’hais.
Working class people.
Wealthy people.
Conservatives.
Sadomasochists.
Theives.
Vandals.
That is just a short list.
I am certain that, being of a mind of equality, Homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims wouldn’t mind including the others on this list as protected classes of people.
William2006 on May 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Many of you have missed the point all together. Hate crime legislation while unconstitutional. Is only unconstitutional if the law makes its way to the SCOTUS. In the mean time it makes these crimes FEDERAL crimes. The criminal will be tried in a federal court. Normal crimes are state crimes. The idea of hate crimes is a against the 10th amendment, they are anti-federalism. And at the same time they violate the 14th amendment – equal protection clause. Or do they?
The 14th amendment says (among other things) “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So technically it is not the 14th amendment that makes hate crimes unconstitutional. Since it is not the State making the law but the federal government.
In my view congress is bastardizing the constitution with these horrible laws.
Dasher on May 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM
What the heck kind of question is this poll question?
Hate crimes are not right — they criminalize thoughts not actions.
Of course this is nothing new, liberals have been trying to criminalize thoughts and beliefs for years.
David
LifeTrek on May 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Your analysis of this problem, included below, is excellent, “Dasher!”
The Federal Government, or any other level of government, can enact a law, place penalties if that law is violated, and it can be enforced no matter what, even if unconstitutional, as long as the higher courts have not heard the case and overturned the law, and as long as the state or federal legislature have not in some manner “overwritten” the said law or reversed it, as the Dred Scott v Sanford case exhibited.
William2006 on May 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Isn’t that basically first degree murder, or at least second degree, since you’d have had a long time to contemplate doing it. We already have laws against crimes that are fully adequate. Trying to estimate what is going on inside a person’s head may have a place in a trial proving or disproving premeditation, murder 1. But it has no place in sentencing simply because finding two people who define what is and is not a hate crime the same way is impossible If you enshrine one way into law, who gets to make the definition? What is his agenda?
{^_^}
herself on May 3, 2009 at 4:45 AM
Yes
They should be called Thought Crimes, not Hate Crimes
entagor on May 4, 2009 at 3:57 AM
I wonder if a drive-by shooting of a black by a black will be considered a hate crime. If not then the law is just more donkey offal.
DannoJyd on May 4, 2009 at 8:14 AM
The question itself can be considered a ‘HATE’ crime.
MSGTAS on May 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2