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: 1 2 Next »
There needs to be a “neither” option.
Darth Executor on May 2, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Hate crimes legislation is stupid. And unconstitutional. We are supposed to have “equal protection under the law” and this type of law says that one group of victims is more protected than another group.
You are right about the self defeating part too Ed. It continues the lefts efforts to separate us into groups and classes. This is meant as a political tool and nothing else.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 8:32 AM
only when “fetuses” become a protected class, will the religious right be happy.
and no, i’m not trying to be snarky. that might actually solve the abortion issue once & for all.
kelley in virginia on May 2, 2009 at 8:36 AM
There is no need for laws against “hate” crimes. This is just “politically correct” bullcrap that undermines the concept of equal protection under the law.
BottomLine5 on May 2, 2009 at 8:37 AM
A crime is a crime…I don’t see any useful purpose in sub-categorizing. If someone is murdered, they’re dead – and the person who committed the act is guilty of murder. Is that murder somehow more heinous if the victim is a member of one of the “approved” sub-groups covered under hate crimes legislation? I just don’t see it. It seems like a total waste of time and money.
uncivilized on May 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM
I just don’t understand what purpose they serve. Is the fact that someone’s punishment going to be harsher if they murder a gay person going to make them think twice? And if they think that stiffer penalties for crimes really do help to prevent them, shouldn’t we just up the penalties for all crimes?
Bill Scrunty on May 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Actually, you might be onto something here.
uncivilized on May 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Ed, if you haven’t seen this classic South Park episode, it reinforces your point beautifully.
Caiwyn on May 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Because they lay the groundwork for “thought crime” and “Speech crime”. It is a paver in the road to a fascist state.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Almost all real crimes are hate crimes (not counting BS victimless crimes such as smoking weed), because the criminal hates private property rights. The property includes both the victim’s body and possessions.
The Dean on May 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
i would have to read the legislation. does the target of a hate crime become, by statute, a “protected class” under the 14th amendment?
furthermore, if i murder my neighbor because his dog barks at night, we could come up with some far-fetched reason that my neighbor is one of those “protected” by hate-crime legislation & the ripples of this legislation become wider & wider.
kelley in virginia on May 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
We need leaders ro oppose this who are not afraid of being called the “R” word (Racist!)
Let’s punish people for what they do, not what they think. This garbage is un-American and hard to oppose.
dentalque on May 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Agreed, “hate crime” legislation is just another of the many tools the permanent ruling class uses to remain in power and should be ruled unconstitutional.
The application of justice use to be blind and unemotional, now, not so much.
Zorro on May 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM
have we all determined yet that more legislation is not the answer.
for any problem.
kelley in virginia on May 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM
that’s to oppose
Sorry
dentalque on May 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM
What I never understood…
If you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with 2 counts of murder…and that same woman can have a 3rd term abortion…???????? Makes no sense…
jerrytbg on May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM
6331 votes and 68% agree it will hurt at the time of this comment.
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Of course it should be protected under such legislation, but that’s not really the point from my perspective. Such legislation is odious irrespective of how evenly it is applied. It needs to be refered to by its proper name by people who cherish liberty: thought crime legislation.
holygoat on May 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
and jerrytbg: in some states that have the death penalty, killing a pregnant woman & thereby getting the “2 for 1″ murder act, creates a capital offense scenario.
maybe pregnant women should be a protected class. and then my husband couldn’t send the pregnant crack whores to jail. i guess we’d have to bring ‘em home.
kelley in virginia on May 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
the hate crime legislation would never be evenly applied.
kelley in virginia on May 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Yea Kelly…I catch the drift…
This so out of control…
I don’t know if we should laugh or cry…
jerrytbg on May 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM
It’s already hurt. Take what happened with the Duke Lacrosse team and the Jena 6. It’s obvious, our government is making excuses for minorities and going out of their way to punish the majority. It’s nothing but and attempt at thought control, plain and simple.
God created man, and Democrats are making them unequal.
Hog Wild on May 2, 2009 at 9:01 AM
my friend Tommy Christopher is helping to lobby to expand the House bill to include even more protected classes of victims.
Well then, your friend Tommy Christopher is a stone cold idiot, and if he’s that GD stupid, you should disassociate yourself. With a stance like that it’s clear that he can only drag down your intelligence. There’s no chance of you educating him.
RWLA on May 2, 2009 at 9:03 AM
How long until the military is officially branded as ‘haters’? What .. already?
-
Hmmmm… maybe just *talking* about ‘hate’ will qualify
— slap THAT label on the MSM !! Yeah baby!
CaveatEmpty on May 2, 2009 at 9:05 AM
At what point do Constitutional arguments become moot? I’m beginning to think we’re past that point already.
Bugler on May 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Political ideology isn’t a protected category as defined under the legislation. So, you know, if they’re murdering him because he’s a well-known white supremacist, then that’s probably not going to go very far in terms of hate crime charges.
If he’s a white supremacist, but there’s no reason to suspect that people would know about it just by looking at him, and he’s walking around in Detroit and a group of black people kill him because they don’t want white people coming around, then yes, that would be a hate crime. Or it should be, anyway. It doesn’t only protect minority groups.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Probably not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Actually that Virginia v. Black case is a great example. Justice O’Connor wrote that just burning a cross bans free speech, but burning a cross with the purpose of intimidation can be banned.
OMG THOUGHT CRIME THOUGHT CRIME! LOL!
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Really? Can you point to one case in particular?
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 9:18 AM
My knee-jerk reaction when reading the two words together “protected class” instantly transports my head to object oriented programming. I suppose this is not mainstream thought but the corollary is remarkably accurate.
My position is that, politically, the hate crime debate is motivated by the inference that you will increase your popularity among those you imply are hated if you propound that a hate crime is different than a crime of the same dynamics between neutral combatants. Cliff Notes: A strategic position to obtain the votes of those groups claiming to be oppressed. When you gain the votes of the oppressed that is the end of the contract.
What hasn’t been tried to end hate, or more precisely, to end cultural differences between groups that are culturally different? Sure, in general, there are mixed ethnicities seemingly living in harmony in the suburbs. The suburbs suggest that either the melting pot is working or suburbanites are so loosely knit, as a community, that a “safe distance” is implied and respected. But get closer to the urban areas and the center of the city and you are in need of fluency in second language or a translator.
Take a look at the architectural improvements that have become fashionable in the urban areas and the center cities, for instance – burglar bars and roll-down steel storefronts. The burglar bars are there to keep the folks from suburbia out after the shops have closed – right? The steel doors are there to provide a canvas for the oppressed to express their feelings through the medium of spray paint – right?
The joke is that oppression is a function of a society that is lacking in spirituality and the teachings of morality and we are unable to deal with it. A protected class cannot be modified by the class that inherits it. See? It cuts both ways with hate crime and the rights of the unborn.
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM
If someone attacks me because of my color is the attack not already illegal?
How old are you?
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 9:28 AM
How long will it be before you don’t even have to carry out the act?
Otis B on May 2, 2009 at 9:28 AM
I could never understand the rational for hate crime legislation because I would be hard pressed to cite any crime committed against another individual that wasn’t motivated by hate. No one ever says: I loved her so darn much that I just had to kill her.
eaglescout1998 on May 2, 2009 at 9:33 AM
OJ never said that…
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
A crime is a crime no matter the intent.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
So manslaughter and first degree murder get the same punishment. OK.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Please provide a logical argument showing that “hate crime” laws do not equate to “thought crime” laws. They can be nothing else. They punish the feeling behind the action, in addition to the action, so that not only is the action punished, but the feeling behind the action, but only certain feelings. Therefore, if I murder a black person just because I wanted to see a human being die, and that black person was the most easily accessible human to me, I cool re. hate crimes prosecution. But the black guy is just as dead as if I decided to go all Bull Conner on his ass.
holygoat on May 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM
First hate crimes, then hate speech. The threat is that it will become a political tool of the left to oppress those evil christians and conservatives as they try to try to exercise their religion and express American values that are “hate” to the brainwashed lemming liberals on the left. Nazis is an abbreviated form for national socialism. Controllng “hate” has always been a powerful tool to enforce their political system.
volsense on May 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM
First hate crimes, then hate speech. The threat is that it will become a political tool of the left to oppress those evil christians and conservatives as they try to try to exercise their religion and express American values that are “hate” to the brainwashed lemming liberals on the left. Nazis is an abbreviated form for national socialism. Controllng “hate” has always been a powerful tool to enforce their political system.
volsense on May 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM
some pigs ARE more equal than others…gay people, for example, are worth more than you racistsexistbigotedhatefulhomophobic conservatives…
Orwell would understand our society ALL TOO WELL….
right4life on May 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM
this is an idiotic analogy. the REAL analogy is punishing someone MORE for the SAME crime, because of ‘hate’ ie political incorrectness….
right4life on May 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM
crickets still chirping
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Because Ed, just because it’s called a “hate crime” doesn’t mean that it’s punishing crimes for the motivation of “hatred.”
This is how it works: You beat up a guy because he’s messing around with your girl. You spend some time in jail depending on how badly you beat him up and whether you were trying to kill (ANOTHER THOUGHT CRIME OMG OMG ORWELL)
OK, so that’s not a hate crime even though you hate that guy.
Now, same situation, you beat up the guy because he’s a black guy out with a white girl, and you don’t like that. You and you white friends beat the hell out of him and you say, “Let’s make sure you and your friends don’t think to takin our women no more” or whatever.
Now, you’ve committed whatever physical assault that you’ve committed, but you’ve also committed a SEPARATE crime against every black person in that area, whose existences are a little less free because of your violent act. They have to live in fear about whether they can talk to white people – forget dates.
And maybe you don’t beat him up that bad, maybe you just punch him and you get a citation and a couple nights in jail or whatever.
You’re out on the streets after released for a minor assault, but the crime of intimidation will linger for years, and THAT is what hate crimes are intended to punish.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I ignored it because it’s irrelevant. Your problem is with the implementation of the law, not the law itself.
That’s a valid complaint. But that’s not what were talking about here.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM
It is coming and already alive and well in other countries like Canada yet the tools like Rino will play right along. Cannot wait till it bites them in the arse. One of their friends or family will be imprisoned then they will get it.
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
You ignored it becuase you had NOTHING.
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Again you are how old?
—
So if someone attacks a black guy as you stated just how do all those other black people know what he said??
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
You ignored it because you can’t point to a single indecent where someone other than those who commit crimes against “approved victims” has ever been prosecuted for a hate crime. It is relevant because of your original statement that it protected everyone.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I think I would have to see the list of all the love crimes before I would know what a hate crime is.
rsl775 on May 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I am still trying to figure out how if an idiot attacks someone and tells them why it was how that is a crime against a whole group of people(identified and divided out by government) that was not there.
Just more dividing and conquering.
BTW if crime occurs in my area it worries me regardless of their intent. So is not all crime hateful?
Jamson64 on May 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I agree that more legislation is more rope to choke sanity and liberty.
There is a lot of excessive legislation that needs retraction, to be rescinded. It was excessive when made, and has outworn its “original need”.
The Constitution deems all people equal before the law. Civil Rights confirmed the Bill of Rights to be applied to all citizens. But the Bill of Rights already applied. Whatever the Civil Rights ADDED skewed the balance that simply needed to be applied from the Bill of Rights as our nation’s urtext on liberties. Placing civil rights or any legislation above the Constitution and Bill of Rights is wrong. Comprising a list of who matters how much is unconstitutional.
maverick muse on May 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Acknowledging life consistently matters.
maverick muse on May 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM
+1
So our deified legislators will send down their 10 Commandments from Capitol Hill to distinguish who matters, who doesn’t, and delineate the various shades for prosecution according to “popular opinion” that reeks of inbred PC prejudice.
maverick muse on May 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
You’re an idiot. If I was a minority, or gay, or both, and hated your guts all I’d have to do is start a fight with you … call the cops, claim you attacked me because I’m black or gay or whatever and tell them you said you were gonna kill me because of what I am. It’d be your word against mine …
Just whose word do you think they’re gonna take?
You’re toast.
darwin on May 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
You ignored it because you are a gas bag. A walking talking failure
The implementation of the law has EVERYTHING to do wit the law and it is what we are talking about.
How can one really determine what is in someones mind and why should it matter. It is the actions that count and not the thought.
Here are some more good reasons from an excerpt
There are quite a few other reasons to be skeptical of hate laws. (1) Proving that hatred is a motivation is costly and difficult. (2) Attributing motivation to a specific emotion can be quite subjective. It allows a jury or a judge to penalize criminals on subjective grounds. This can be a source of injustice. (3) Harm to others than the actual victim is not actually proven. It is presumed, and the criminal is punished for this unproven crime. This is unjust. (4) The externality theory is faulty because all sorts of crimes may intimidate non-victims or potential victims. If people are to be punished using a theory of crime, that theory should be broad enough and accurate enough to be fair over all similar cases. (5) Restitution to victims is typically disregarded by our criminal justice system. Hate crime legislation continues this feature. It adds to it by focusing on added penalties. (6) Over time, as laws and cases multiply, people can eventually be accused of libelous or seditious hate crimes involving vehement speech when they are biased against a group or merely do not like it or its policies. People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions. (7) Perhaps hatred as a motivation will eventually be used as grounds for letting the criminal off the hook. Some clever lawyer will argue that the person’s hatred was uncontrollable or instilled by forces beyond his control
kangjie on May 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Definition of a “Hate Crime”? It is that rare violent crime for which liberals actually care about the crime victim. Rather than apologize for the criminal, they actually want him punished.
grgeil on May 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Ask Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, while they were not jailed they incurred debt defending themselves.
thomasaur on May 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
If I don’t act on my hatred, but still loathe the Left, will that be a crime?
BuckeyeSam on May 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM
“Hate Crime” legislation is just an attempt to impose Orwellian Thought Control upon society.
It won’t work: who can know what another person is/was thinking? It accomplishes nothing: the crime remains. It demeans the legal system by diverting attention from criminal actions to “thoughts.” It is un-American, as it destroys “equal protection under the law.”
landlines on May 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Ed, I’m amazed that you don’t understand the purpose of hate crime legislation. Do you really think it’s to punish hate for the specific person you’re committing the crime against?
The purpose of hate crime legislation is to further discourage acts that not only injure a single target, but serve as a threat to an entire group of people.
It may be unconstitutional as drafted, unconstitutional in general, or poorly implemented as drafted, but your specific argument completely missed the point of its purpose.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Too many comments to read them all… so this may have been said before:
This is the typical lazy fix for lax enforcement of existing laws. Instead of vigorously enforcing an existing law that prohibits some arbitrary crime against persons or property, just specify some vaguely-defined subcategory of that crime, add on some additional penalties, then pass it as a law. The real problem comes when the subcategory requires that you divine the underlying motive of the perp.
If some kids egg my house because I’m a nasty curmudgeon, who never gives out candy at Halloween, they will likely get a stern warning if they are caught. If they egg my house because I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, then it’s a hate crime and they should be sent to juvie?
If some perv kidnaps and tortures some random victim, they get 2 years then probation because it’s a first offense. If somebody else does it because the person is a (insert ethnic group here), they get life, or perhaps even the needle? All because they had bad thoughts?
As I said, the real issue is lax and lazy enforcement of existing laws.
DaveK on May 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Thought crimes don’t even make sense and a bad precedent.
Cindy Munford on May 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Why don’t you tell us exactly where you are now, and we’ll bring you in to discuss this.
- Your friendly Leftists
/sarc
landlines on May 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Crime against any human being is wrong. Why do so few not get this? Hate crime legislation essentially measures the crime based on who the victim is. CRIME IS CRIME.
pjean on May 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Tools for tools.
hillbillyjim on May 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM
The problem here is that the individual is not considered a “protected class”. If it were, none of these idiotic constructs would be possible.
holygoat on May 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Very simple. Death threats are illegal in many places. Do you think this shouldn’t be the case? Death threats are illegal because they cause legitimate fear of injury or death to an individual.
You can think of hate crimes as a type of death threat. For example, lynchings. I’m sure we can all agree that when these lynchings took place with regularity that many blacks other than just the specific targets feared for their lives. Whenever a lynching took place, it wasn’t just a crime against the specific person, but it was a threat to all other blacks.
The thought is not what’s being prosecuted. You are free to think what you want. When you put the thought into action, and there are consequences to that action (other people being intimidated), then you can be prosecuted for that.
Cross burning is another good example. You can hate the cross in your mind all you want. You can even burn a cross in private. But if you burn a cross with the intent to intimidate, that can be illegal, because intimidating speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I think you’re wrong. I think the purpose of so called Hate Crimes bills is to further balkanize the United States into a collection of competing grievance groups with the intention of fomenting never ending animus between those groups and white people. It’s a way to keep guys like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the db’s at La Raza, etc etc relevant. The last thing supporters of Hate Crime legislation want is racial harmony based on respect of the individual.
holygoat on May 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Hate crimes legislation is no more than a life support system for the PC thought police. If the legislation shuts down unPC views, then it’s advocates generally care less about niceties of fairness, free speech, due process, etc, beyond using them to hide their bullying behind terms of righteousness.
Klavan On The Culture: The sum of today’s liberal argument is ‘Shut Up’.
petefrt on May 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Again, lynching. You agree that when lynchings were regular, blacks who hadn’t been the specific targets still worried for their lives when they went out, especially near whites, right?
The reason this is different than any old crime in your neighborhood. If you hear about a random murder in your neighborhood, you fear a little more for your safety, but there isn’t necessarily a reason to believe that the perpetrators of the crime might have targeted you instead. If you hear that a gang has been going around killing Italians and you are Italian, then you have a legitimate reason to fear that you may also be targeted.
By the way, this is similar to terrorism charges for the Beltway sniper shootings. If the snipers had just killed one person for personal vengeance, it wouldn’t have been terrorism. Because their actions intended to strike fear into everyone in the vicinity, and because it did, their sentence could be heightened.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM
If a white guy finds his wife in bed with a white guy and shoots him
If a white guy finds his wife in bed with a black guy and shoots him
This whole legislation is not equal protection. If I shoot him while wearing Dr martens, I also have terrorism charges.
seven on May 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
So when lefty nutbags shout down a conservative speaker at a college campus and throw pies at them that would be considered hate speech or a hate crime? The purpose is intimidation, right?
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I agree with you to a certain extent. But the existence of such people on the other side of the debate shouldn’t keep you from arguing the honest version of that side, which I believe is what I said.
If a gay person is tracked down because he is gay and beaten such that other gay people are put on notice, then that’s worse than just beating up some guy outside of a bar.
And if you agree with that, then you should be lobbying for the hate crime laws to focus on this aspect (intimidating a group), not just on the speech aspects, and make sure that it would cover all possible groups, including whites. Because I also believe that if a gang goes around beating up white people specifically, then other white people would be intimidated, and the same logic applies.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Ed, your post yesterday covered all the bases. I would hate to think that, were I murdered, the perp would get less time because we happened to be of the same race, or the perp failed to utter some racially inflammatory words prior to sending me back to the Creator for judgment.
That some motives (mens rea) for premeditated murder (actus reus) are more worthy of enhanced punishment than others rankles me. It seems inherently unfair.
What’s interesting is that such motives are not instantaneously developed, and that the person who develops those motives may have no active part in their development.
Given that liberals consider racial animus, “homophobia”, etc. as not sane, how about insanity as a defense?
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Back to the Supreme Court. I can see a conservative SC striking down hate crime laws as unconstitutional, violating the 1st amendment, while a liberal SC would uphold hate crimes. Not just possible, but is there any doubt of this? Any doubt at all? The SC has so much power. And it’s not based on the law, but on the prejudices of the justices.
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Er, I don’t think I said that anything that intimidates someone is a hate crime. But that example could qualify in a very weak way, if conservative speakers everywhere legitimately feared physical violence as a result of these attacks.
Of course, that is a very mild form of intimidation compared to when the act is actually beating someone up or killing them.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:14 AM
By the way, I think of “hate” as wanting to destroy someone, obliterate someone. So isn’t all murder a hate crime? And if it’s done dispassionately, as in a murder for hire, does that somehow make it better?
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Crime is not crime. Manslaughter is different than first degree murder. More analogously, a terrorist act that kills one person is completely different than a regular first degree murder. There are different punishments for each of these crimes, and there should be.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Any law like this should be struck down by supreme court rulings. However, if BHO appoints a leftwing socialist, this may affect rulings that make sense to 50% of the public.
tx2654 on May 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Political ideology isn’t a recognized category for hate crimes. Wouldn’t matter who the speaker is, liberal or conservative.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Isn’t every crime done out of some kind of hate. Why don’t parents raise their kids to show violence doesn’t pay. I guess now it is the in thing to do. I don’t see how one can judge if it is a hate crime or not. Is it a hate crime if a parent kills a child, in a teen kills their parents. If a brother robs his sister cause they are at odds. If divorced couples kill each other. Those can all be attributed to hate. I think the whole thing is stupid.
Brat4life on May 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
You are focusing on the word “hate” as if that fully summarizes the purpose of hate crimes. The purpose is to punish acts of violence that also serve as intimidation to a group of people.
This is what terrorism is, for example. Crimes committed based on racial prejudice are simply another example.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Threats are not protected by the First Amendment. They weren’t prior to hate crime legislation and they probably never will be.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Please read what I just wrote. You should try to at least understand the other side of the debate before arguing against it.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Agree, but not for your stated reason. In the case of the gay man, “tracked down” indicates a level of premeditation or thinking in advance of the act which is not present in “just beating up some guy outside of a bar”.
Motive is everything. The enhancement already happens if the perp says “I beat him up because he was gay and to send a message”. That indicates premeditation on the act, as opposed to the act happening in the heat of the moment (as might be the case were the gay guy to put the moves on a straight guy and, in the act, violate the straight man’s personal space, thus causing an immediate violent response from the straight).
So, the kind of thinking I might agree with has the following utterance from you:
Even there, it’s what the beater was thinking and how long he was thinking it. In the first case, premeditation is a given, and, in the second, it isn’t.
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM
No, your wrong _if_ you are saying First degree murder should be capital murder if it’s white on black, or black on white motivated and only first degree murder if it’s white on white. That is NOT equal protection under the law. Saying someone is deserving of MORE protection because of their skin color is unconstitutional any way it is applied because saying a white person who “only” killed a white person is not equal justice. First degree murder is first degree murder.
tx2654 on May 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Your point was that intimidating speech was not protected. When Ann Coulter was attacked with pies as I remember the perps were charged with assault. Their defense was that they were practicing free speech. My point is that because they were attempting to intimidate not only her but all conservative speakers that come to their campus that it constituted a hate crime by your reasoning.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Please consider the difference between doing and being. Motive and intent are important as far as premeditation. So you have different degrees of murder. But your sentiment, your attitude, that’s who you are. Law determines guilt, and how you feel has nothing to do with your degree of guilt. Law and the determination of guilt are meant to be completely OBJECTIVE. It must be, to be fair. So, you can’t include SUBJECTIVE factors like how someone feels, e.g., if they feel hateful. Feelings are subjective. Actions, and the thoughts behind them, those are objective. Only those are considered measurable.
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM
You want to punish for premeditation? Isn’t that a THOUGHT CRIME?!?!
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I absolutely agree. A very mild hate crime, but yes, I would support enhancement of punishment in a case like that. Clearly it was worse than just throwing pies at a random person as an isolated incident.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Because, in some cases, violence does pay. It pays (to the victor, whether the victor started it or not) in the case of warfare, and it also may pay in the case where the justice system fails a victim.
“Hate crime” means that certain acts are legally defined to be hate, and, by contraposition, all other motives are, by definition, not. So, in the case of parents killing their children or children killing their parents, that is not hate under the proposed law, no matter that the underlying motive may be the emotion of hate. Hence, the presence of the emotion once known as hate does not imply a “hate crime”.
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM
I disagree that subjective feelings have no place in the law. Laws concerning crimes of passion, temporary insanity, etc. are used to mitigate punishment for a crime.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Political ideology is not protected under hate crime legislation, though. It wouldn’t apply in this case. It wouldn’t apply if it were a liberal either.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM
This is absolutely not the intent of the law, nor is it how it is written. Being a white-on-black murder is not enough for it to be hate crime. The prosecution would have to show that it was motivated from racial hatred.
Also, if you’re going to say “First degree murder is first degree murder” then explain whether you are for or against heightened sentencing for a terrorist act that kills a single person.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
The problem with the law as I see it is that it identifies groups with political ideologies (i.e. gays, blacks, illegal immigrants etc.) as victims that can be intimidated by crime and therefore the crime is more egregious. The issue is that the same protections are not applied evenly to all persons. Therein lies the rub. We are assured equal protection under the law.
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:36 AM
But it doesn’t specifically protect gays and blacks or any other group with a specific political ideology, it just says if you commit a crime because of the person’s race, gender, sexual orientation etc. you will be punished for that. It doesn’t say what the race or sexual orientation have to be.
Granted, it’s *more likely* to protect gays and blacks, but just because a law has disproportionate effects doesn’t mean it’s a bad law.
Proud Rino on May 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM
That’s true for this particular law and for the laws currently on the books. But he was responding to my general argument about intimidation.
I do agree that if there were a rash of these attacks that resulted in mass intimidation of a political group, then legislation that recognized it would be appropriate. (Of course, you’d have to be careful because heightened scrutiny applies when political speech is involved.)
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I disagree, if I were demonstrating for gay rights and was beat up for it, it could qualify as a hate crime. But if I were protesting for preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and a gay group beat me up it would not because I would not be listed as one of the protected groups under the law. That is my whole point. It is unfair and does not provide protections under the law equally to all Americans
conservnut on May 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM
There’s a different between premeditation, which involves deliberation, and sentiments such as hate. Someone’s feelings have no place in the law. The law is objective, it must be, it can be, it should be. They kill Matthew Sheppard because he’s gay or drag James Byrd to death because he’s black, there is plenty of law to punish them to the max without having to factor in their sentiments. If we punish sentiments, pretty soon people will be sent to mandatory diversity sensitivity training for bigotry. Next, reeducation camps. That’s the far left for you. Sentiments don’t cause crime. For example, you can believe gay sex is revolting and not go out and kill homosexuals.
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM
I agree that Equal Protection issues may be a concern for this law. But suspect classes have long been recognized by the constitution and the Supreme Court, and not just by the liberals.
My main point, by the way, was that the First Amendment issues are completely bogus, at least as described by Ed and by the commenters here.
tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »