In this thread felt I had to comment on a hijack point about hate crime legislation.
I get sick of would be intelectuals who feel the need to deride hate crime legislation based on their own “politically incorrect” dogma. As I pointed out there, the biggest reason I’m glad to have hate crime legislation is because someone who commits a hate crime is more likely to be a continued threat.
Think about it, a common point the anti-pc crowd will make is that if you assault anyone you hate that person. That is certainly true, but someone who hates an individual is far less dangerous that someone who hates a group.
If anyone could explain any flaws in my reasoning I would appreciate it, it honestly disturbs me to hear reasonable people defend extremists and I would like to understand the reasoning.
By the way, I realise the word is spelled recidivism.
I fixed the title.
BTW, it’s spelled realize.
-Czarcasm The Anal
Actually, it’s spelled “rescidivism”. Look it up.
No, it isn’t, I’m just playing with you. I agree that intellectually, “hate crime” legislation can seem unnecesary and maybe a bit repugnant, but I put it into the same category as Affirmative Action: it exists to right a serious injustice directed at a segment of the population. The lynching of blacks and other minorities was often lightly punished in the U.S. over the past few centuries, with (all-white) juries being far more sympathetic to the perpetrators than the victim. Killing a gay man in 1950 might not have delivered nearly as much punishment on his killer(s) as deserved because a (mostly straight) jury and a (probably straight) judge could be affected by the victim’s orientation, but hate crime laws try to correct this.
Affirmative Action has (mostly) accomplished what it set out to do, and a black man or woman is no longer an oddity in a college classroom, or on a jury or even as a judge. As such, I feel AA should be gradually phased out. Within a few years, hopefully, the murder of a homosexual or a minority will simply be viewed as the murder of a human being, and punished accordingly. At that point, hate-law legislation will have served its purpose and may no longer be needed.
Unnecessary disclosure: straight white Canadian male, here.
Brian, I see where you are coming from but I disagree. I believe the motive is the distinguishing factor- someone who kills with a motive seems less dangerous.
Example- you kill the man your wife was having an affair with. you are not likely to kill again- the target is gone. If you killed a man because he was black there are plenty more targets for you so you need to be kept out of circulation.
I’m probably not explaining this very well, but I don’t see it as a “special protection” of minorities.
grendel72, I think you basically have it. Try this, though: A hate crime isn’t committed only against the individual victims, it’s an attack on, and an attempt to create fear among, all members of the group they represent. Even though they’re only indirect victims, society as a whole has to protect all of its members against those who would try to tear society apart. Yes, I agree with you that the more numerous the victims, the more serious the crime.
[massive hijack]
Only in America. In “British English” (i.e. the English they speak in the rest of the world), “realise” is the proper spelling.
[/massive hijack]
[re: the massive hijack]
I’m just a dum ol Merkin what cain’t speel.
[/massive hijack]
ElvisL1ves, I don’t dissagree with your reasoning, but one issue I have with some liberal ideology is that it seems to take place in a vacuum. I think more tangible reasons exist to support the cause but all of the theoretical talk leaves people cold.
I really do seem to be having trouble expressing myself. What I am trying to get at is that otherwise rational people who happen to have conservative or libertarian views side with extremists on this issue when it seems to me to be obvious that hate crime legislation is a good thing.
I can understand that the rights of people you find repugnant are important, but it seems that hate groups get more protection than the rest of us. Years back in the city where I live the city government shut down a Marilyn Manson concert- just last year they refused to shut down a klan rally, siting first ammendment rights. I don’t know, maybe I’m not explaining myself well but it seems to me that people who don’t agree with extremist causes still give them more respect than they give to the rest of us.
Actually, according to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:
If you intentionally kill a guy, legally it doesn’t matter if he was boinking your wife, or he scratched your car, or he asked for too many cites. Establishing motive can help convince a jury, but it isn’t necessary to prove guilt. If I kill my brother during an argument and there are no witnesses, and I choose not to testify at my trial, I can still be convicted even if the prosecutor cannot prove what the argument was about, or even if there was an argument.
Hate-crime legislation challenges that, though. In such a case, a prosecutor has to prove not only that there was a motive, but that the motive stemmed from the victim’s race or sexual orientation. Considering the higher penalties typically linked to a hate-crime conviction, the standard should be high, if not extreme. I can imagine killing a guy for any number of reasons, none of which being that he is black or asian or gay. If by some chance I end up killing a black asian gay guy becuase he annoyed me in some way (too many damn grammar corrections!), I don’t think hate-crime penalties would be appropriate.
But if witnesses testify that I have said on many occasions that black asian gay guys are taking over the world and they took my job and foreclosed on my house, and I’ve talked about I want to go looking for a black asian gay guy to shoot him and even the score, throw away the key. Elvis was correct about the community considerations, at least in Wisconsin:
(from a Dept of Justice FAQ)
Motive is a distinguishing factor, but only it only legally matters if a hate-crime conviction is sought. Of course, juries being what they are, it may turn out the prosecutor proves I deliberately sought out and killed a random black asian gay guy and I’m acquitted anyway because the jury is full of chowderheads who feel they’ve been screwed by black asian gay guys. That’s nullification for ya.
Anyhoo, hate-crime legislation remains under serious constitutional challenge wherever it appears, and some state versions have been upheld while others shot down. The Supremes ruled out a federal version two years ago, deciding that violent crime was a state responsibility.
See, we’re all on pretty much the same page. What I’m really interested in is the reasoning of those whe are so strongly opposed to hate crime legislation that any tangental mention of it sets them off on a hijack.
Why is keeping a violent person who remains a threat off the streets less important than some goofy political agenda. Why does the KKK have more support for their right to assemble than rock fans.
In short, why are those with the least respect for other’s rights treated with kid gloves?
grendel72,
I’m at least pretty sure I’m opposed to hate-crime legislation, and I’ll try to explain why.
If I am ever the victim of a crime, I’m not going to care WHY the perpetrator did it. I’ll want to see him held accountable, and to the exact same extent as any other perpetrator of the same crime.
Let’s say there’s a black guy across the street from me who gets beaten and robbed for being black, and a gay guy next door who gets beaten and robbed for being gay. At the same time, a mugger with profit as his simple motive, beats and robs me. If all three perpetrators are caught, and “my” perpetrator gets half as much punishment as the other two, I’m going to be pissed.
Well, no matter how pissed you get, don’t take it out on the black neighbor and the gay neighbor. That’s just asking for trouble.
But, Chris, it seems evident to mee that your attacker would be less likely to strike again, if he does I feel that repeat offendors should be punished more severely (not to the extent of the three strikes laws, but more severely). In the case of the other hypothetical assaults I think it can be assumed based on the criminal’s motivation that they will strike again.
I disagree. You would have to look at each case individually in order to judge which criminal is more likely to “strike again.” In fact I would say that someone who commits a crime simply because they enjoy it is more likely to strike again than someone who commits a crime because they hate the victim because of some protected characteristic. I am not sure how I would feel if my attacker got less time than someone who did the same crime with a different motive, when the cases were not even looked at individually but put through a general rule. Hopefully I’ll never find out…
Another problem is that motives can be complex. For example, two men in a bar start arguing. One of them, in addition to being really angry over the argument, enjoys causing pain. The other, in addition to the argument, is biased towards disliking the other because of some protected characteristic, although they would normally never act on that dislike. They fight. Is one of them deserving of a much harsher sentence? Is it a hate crime? How much of your motive must be based on hate of a special group in order for hate crime status? 100%? 51%? 1%? How much to you have to hate them? Do you even have to hate them, or just believe they are inferior? What if you just dislike them a little?
And is a system that takes people from all over this spectrum, and fits them all into a single category, called “hate crimes”, where they can be given or threatened with a harsher sentence that is not based on their individual case, a good idea?
All crime creates fear. I’ve never understood the distinction of hate crimes versus some other non-hate crime. No one wants a crime commited against them for any reason. Wisconsin thinks it is worse because blacks can’t stop being black? Well, now I know that any sensible person should sell their car to avoid grand theft auto. :rolleyes:
I can understand the motivation for Affirmative Action, but this seems silly to me.
Can I point out that hate crime legislation addresses everyone equally – though, thanks to the social climate, it tends to protect some more than others.
If as a straight white man I am assaulted by a band of radical feminists, a band of gay activists, or a group of blacks (and I know that most of these are straight out of Jerry Falwell’s paranoid fantasies, thanks) because I’m straight, white, or male – then I’m the victim of a hate crime.
If a black man is robbed not because he’s black but because he’s been waving a roll of money around, he’s no more the victim of a hate crime than would I be if I were the money-waver.
If a gay man happens to get into a bar fight over, say, the relative virtues of the NDP and Alliance parties (somehow it seemed appropriate to site this incident in Canada), not over his sexuality, no hate crime situation is present.
The motive of assault for the reason that the victim is a member of a given classification – and note that that does not necessarily mean “minority” – is the grounds for charging with hate crime status. If a Garrison Keillor-crazed person is assaulting Lutherans because they’re Lutherans, then there’s a hate crime present. If his grounds for such an assault are not based in the protected categories of identification, then there is not.
But Chris, that’s our system already gives different punishments based on motive. Let’s take the guy who mugged you.
[ul]
[li]If Mr. Mugger beats and robs you simply for money, he get’s (let’s say) 2 years in prison;[/li][li]However, if Mr. Mugger’s child has been kidnapped and he beats and robs you because he needed to get money fast to save his child’s life, he is very likely going to get a lesser sentence - let’s say 1 year;[/li][li]OTOH, if Mr. Mugger beats and robs you because he is trying to raise money so that he and his buddy can buy explosives to blow up the Super Bowl, he can be charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder and be locked up for life - even though his only act was to mug you.[/li][/ul]
Same exact crime, three different punishments. The differing punishments are to account for the differing motives for committing the crime.
So the argument that we shouldn’t tack on extra penalties for hate crimes because we shouldn’t punish thoughts argument is a red herring. The question that remains is whether this particular motive - attacking someone because you don’t like the victim’s race/sex/sexual orientation/religion/etc. - is one that deserves additional punishment.
I say “yes, we should.” Our entire penal code is based on an idea of comparative evils. You go to jail longer for killing one person than for stealing $50 million not because the one victim’s life was “worth” more than $50 million - in most cases, it’s not (check out awards in wrongful death suits) - but instead because murder is a greater affront to our values and beliefs then theft, regardless of how much was taken.
I similarly believe that we should punish hate crimes because crimes motivated by hatred of a particular group is comparatively more evil than crimes motivated by profit, etc. Additional penalties express our outrage at this type of conduct.
Sua
a clearer example can be found using homicide.
In each case, of course, you’re dead, not caring about what the motive etc were, however, let me assure you that the perp will indeed be subjected to differing potential penalties depending on the situtation, motive etc. Manslaughter, murder in the first or second degree, etc, some may not face charges at all. Penalties will range from probation, on up to the death penalty depending on the circumstances and state.
Our system of justice has many variations, depending on the background of the criminal, the motive for the crime, the seriousness of the offense , certain demographics of the victim (police officer? child? the elderly? etc.).
::sniff:: My mugging example wasn’t clear? Oh man, I’m such a loser. I can’t do anything right. I suck.
Sua
Hey, I do have another hypothetical situation to throw in here.
Suppose that A is a person who somewhat dislikes homosexuality, but normally keeps his beliefs to himself.
B is an openly, obviously, gay man.
A and B meet in a bar, and strike up a heated debate on the relative merits of the Ford Mustang versus the Chevrolet Camaro. A throws a punch at B, and it escalates into a fistfight. While fighting, A angrily makes anti-gay remarks to B.
How would society, or a court, decide whether or not to classify this as a hate crime? How do we decide if A struck B because of his sexual orientation, or because of the argument, or perhaps a little of both?