Hate Crime Legislation Revisited

Great Debates
41

Great, minty, I’m happy for you that state of mind and motive are part of the process under current laws. There’s nothing unusual about ‘Was this planned ahead of time.’ There’s something very unusual about ‘Do this guy’s philosophical beliefs make him more guilty in the eyes of the law.’

Lemme ask you this, minty. Could there be any other reason that white racists would kill a black man than ‘because he was black’?

What I’m specifically steadfastly against is the addition of ANY new law which makes specific states of mind, opinions or beliefs criminal acts in and of themselves.

It is not illegal to be a white supremacist. It’s not illegal to be a member of the KKK. It’s not illegal to have swastika tattoos. It may be disgusting to you and me, but it’s not illegal.

The case is what, two guys who tied a third guy to the back of the pickup truck and dragged him to death. A savage, brutal, gruesome and cruel act which they planned ahead of time and carried out. The crime isn’t ‘worse’ because they were racists and Byrd was black, IMO. And really, that’s what ‘hate crimes’ laws say. That if you’re a racist, a sexist, religionist, homophobe - then your crime is automatically worse than the same offense comitted by someone else. It says there’s a separate law that punishes people more heavily if they have the wrong philosophical beliefs when they commit a crime.

Considering premeditation, mitigating and aggravating factors is perfectly valid. Creating new laws that decide which beliefs and opinions are incorrect as a matter of law is a very bad idea.

If people wanna be racist ignorants, they have the legal right to do so. I disagree with it, but hey, if someone wants to be racist… he’s got every right to be, I’m not gonna punish someone on the basis of his beliefs. But if he commits a murder, or any other crime, then he ought to be punished for that crime. So what I have to say to people is, believe whatever you want. Do a crime, and you’ll be punished for your actions.

KellyM

You haven’t apologized for all the assumptions you made about my personal life. Until you do, I am not interested in having a discussion with you.

42

Beeblebox are you attempting to be obtuse -

any “attack on American soil” is not the same as how the events of 9/11 have been portrayed.

It has been discussed as an “attack on the American way of life, it’s institutions, it’s symbols” etc. Remember the concern that there’d be an attack on the Statue of Liberty? surely you understand and appreciate the difference between ‘an attack on American soil’ and the Attack on America as the events of 9/11 have been protrayed, despite your posting.

catsix it’s not illegal to be a member of the KKK. However, if you burn a cross on your neighbors lawn to attempt to scare them into moving, certainly not only is that a crime (a property one), but if the motive was for your neighbor to move 'cause you didn’t like the fact he was black, that makes it a hate crime. MOtive is almost always a factor in how we determine criminal charges.

as for 'how do we know Byrd was targeted ‘cause he was black’, well, gosh, seems to me there was testimony to that effect. And, of course, there was the lack of any other apparent motive (there wasn’t an altercation, robbery etc.)

43

Which is not what hate crime law do. Rather, they ask “Was this act motivated by a hatred of a group of which the victim was a member?” The defendant’s philosophical beliefs are not on trial, although they may be relevant in the determination of the motivation of the crime. The controlling factor in applying a hate crime enhancer is motivation, not belief.

And hate crime laws don’t do that (the Supreme Court said they can’t, in R.A.V as well as in other cases), so you don’t have anything to worry about.

I would disagree. The crime is worse. Their actions send a clear message to everyone like Byrd: “Cross us and we’ll do the same to you.” If Byrd had been tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death because he had sold them a bad batch of crack, that message wouldn’t be all that disturbing to the community at large. But that’s not why Byrd was killed. All the evidence points to the conclusion that Byrd was killed because he was black. The act was intended to spread fear and hatred through a community. It was an act of terrorism against an entire segment of society and was far more heinous and far more disruptive of civil society than it would have been had it been merely a particularly nasty way of setting a personal grievance.

First of all, it doesn’t say that. It only says that “If you hold these positions – which we as a society disfavor – and you allow these positions to spur you into lawlessness, we will hold it against you.” I see nothing at all wrong with that.

I made a categorically empirical observation; if it happens not to apply to you, then you must be an exception to the category. I have no obligation to apologize for your exceptionality. You are cordially invited to take any further petty comments you might have to the Pit, where such is far more appropriate.

44

wring:

If I burn things on my neighbors lawn to try to get him to move, then I am guilty of a crime regardless of the reason I want him to move. It’s already illegal. I can already go to prison for it. I can’t harass my neighbors, I can’t burn things on their law, I can’t intimidate them, I can’t threaten them with harm, I can’t attack them. Those things are all illegal already. So why do we need another law that says ‘Yeah but it’s now even MORE illegal if you did these crimes because your neighbors were _______’?

As far as the Byrd case, I am aware of the facts of the case. Although I’d say, not as much so as the jury and the judge. I realize that in that specific example there wasn’t some reason such as money that motivated the crime.

What I was trying to illustrate was that if we look at a crime only from the direction of the defendants being racists, the victim being black, and say ‘Well that looks like enouh evidence that they only picked him because he was black.’, then we’ve all failed. That may be the most convenient explanation, but in all cases may not be the accurate one.

It is entirely possible that two racist skinheads could attack and kill a black man because slashed their tires or beat up one of their friends. Not that either of those things excuse the murder, they are just examples of how ‘because he was black’ might not be the **only/b] reason.

45

Good. Then you are not opposed to any current hate crimes laws. I’m glad we’ve finally managed to explain this to you.

Certainly. But “could there be any other reason” is not the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution. There was ample proof–far beyond the shadow of a doubt–in the Jasper dragging death that the crime was motivated by racial hatred and nothing else.

46

In that one case.

I’m not talking about just that case.

I’m also opposed to adding new laws that cover areas that are already covered in existing law.

Unless I’ve been living under a rock, motive has been a part of criminal law for a very long time. So where exactly is the need to start making new laws that make certain motives more illegal than others?

It just looks like a feel good measure to appease the public and get people re-elected that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with actually punishing actual criminals - since their actions are already illegal and their motives are already under consideration in court.

What would’ve been wrong with just enforcing the laws we already have?

47

laboring the point.

Because if you burn a cross on Neighbor Fred Jones lawn to get him to move 'cause you don’t like him and want him to move, then the net effect to the community is that ‘a guy doesn’t like another guy’.

But, if you burn a cross on Neighbor Fred Jones’ lawn 'cause he’s black and you want all blacks to move, then the crime itself is different, since your motivations include not only Fred, but anyone else in that class.

However, in your scenario, both crimes would be treated the same since the act itself and only the act itself is different.

prior laws dealing with motivations for crimes did not include the unhappy possability that some people will specifically target groups of people to be vicitmized for their inclusion in certain racial characterization, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc.

48

um that should read "however, in your scenario, both crimes woudl be treated the same since the act itself and only the act itself is the same.

49

What if I burn a cross on Fred Jones’ lawn because I hate people named Jones and I don’t want anyone with the name Jones living in my neighborhood? Is that a hate crime?

What I’m saying is that regardless of my reason for wanting Jones out, burning a cross on his lawn is a serious crime, and if I do this I should be severely punished for it.

If I commit a crime against multiple people, I’ll be facing more charges, thus the law already allows for crimes committed against groups.

But what you’re saying is that if I burn a cross on Jones’ lawn because he’s black, then not only have I committed a crime against him for which I should be punished - I’ve also sent the message to the community that I don’t want black people in it, and I should be punished more harshly because of that. The ‘net effect to the community’ as a matter of harm - what actual harm is done to the community by a crime committed against one person? Because they’ll feel bad? Because they perceive a hateful sentiment? Why should that matter in a court of law?

I disagree with you there. I should be punished only for the crime I committed, not for the sentiment the public at large perceives from it.

50

If you burned the cross because of Mr. Jones’ race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation, under existing laws you would be culpable for property damage and harassment - not much of a punishment there. Under hate crimes laws, however, you have effectively committed an act of terrorism against the community - a much more heinous crime, and one worthy of more serious consideration, don’t you think? (Does this mean trying to set fire to a synogogue should be tried as just petty arson?)

And if you disagree, please explain, in detail, what laws already in existence cover this instance, and how they could (and, more importantly, would) be applied in order to render proper justice.

Esprix

51

Well, Espirix, I don’t think burning a cross on someone’s lawn is more heinous depending on which reason I hate that person. I don’t think that the beliefs of the person who did the cross burning make it any worse if it’s a racist or sexist motive - because that implies that it’s not as bad to try to inflict terror on someone when the inflictor is not a racist or a sexist or a religionist or whatever-ist. If the exact same crime is ‘worse’ because of one set of beliefs the perpetrator has, then it’s ‘better’ because of another set of beliefs - and I don’t buy that at all. I think that if a bunch of drug dealers burn a cross on the lawn of the guy who organized the neighborhood watch, then they’re doing something just as bad as if a bunch of racists burns a cross on the lawn of a black family. Both of them are trying to terrorize the victim into leaving.

If you’ve some reason why the terrorizing is worse depending on the reason for it and who the victim is, please share.

As far as I know, arson is not a petty crime. Arsonists who kill someone in the process of arson generally face homicide charges along with the arson charges, and the penalties for both of those typically involve prison. If a person burns down a house, a community center, a synagogue, a church, it’s a serious crime. It’s always serious. It does extensive physical damage to the structure, often completely destroying it, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can even kill people. I’d be hard pressed to say that I think it’s worse if a person sets fire to a building having callous disregard for the lives of ________ people than if he sets fire to a building having callous disregard for the lives of all people. I just don’t get why it’s worse if a neo-nazi burns down a synagogue because he hates Jews than it is when a malcontent burns down the community center because the kids who play there make too much noise. Both committed arson. Both have done terrific damage to private property. Both have caused harm to the community. Both have put people’s lives in danger (and could’ve killed someone). Both can currently be tried for their crimes in a court of law.

So how is having a specific ‘hate crimes’ law going to help?

By the way, in my understanding citizens of the United States do not have to prove why a law shouldn’t be enacted, they have to prove why it should, so that means the people who are pushing for new laws have to show that they will have benefit to me. Otherwise there’s no incentive to change the satus quo.

52

Once again we’re stuck on major offenses. Murder and arson are major offenses, for which a hate crime enhancer is of relatively little significance. But they’re not the bulk of hate crime. Most hate crime offenses are “petty”: intimidation, vandalism, simple assault. But it’s these petty offenses that do the most damage to society. Hate crime sentence enhancers make it possible to get the people who engage in these wholly antisocial acts out of circulation without also mandating that other people who engage in other truly petty acts (especially vandalism) are not punished excessively.

Do you really think that we need to punish the kid who spraypaints “TOM AND JULIE FOREVER” on the side of a bridge the same as the kid who spraypaints “DEATH TO NIGGERS” on the side of a church? These are the same offense – vandalism – but the social injury caused by the former is negligible (except perhaps to Julie), while the social injury caused by the latter is enormous.

53

catsix two things:

In a ‘hate crime’ the victim is not just the one person, it’s the group as well, as the perp intends (that’s why it’s a hate crime ya see?), So while you might simply burn one cross, you’re real objective is not just ‘that property owner’ but any others fitting that description. That brings it into the ‘motive’ aspect vs. ‘how society feels’.

On the other hand, **all ** of our crime legislation has to do with ‘how society feels about stuff’. in general.

For example, stalking behavior has been declared criminal, since it’s intent is to instill fear in or in some other way, affect, the individual stalked. Otherwise, simply walking into a business or alone the sidewalk certainly isn’t criminal.

As for your contention that ‘those who wish to enact legislation need to demonstrate it’s need’, well, hate to break it to ya ducks, but the legislation is there already, and was enacted by our own representatives, whom we elected. Therefore, we’ve already ‘decided that it’s necessary’ and at this point, it’s up to you to demonstrate that it’s not.

54

No, I don’t see. I disagree with you that the ‘victim’ is a big group of people. If the ‘victim’ is a group of people, then you’re instuting a victim class, and they get more protection under the law than other people who are not members of the victim class. That’s just not going to fly.

And it sure was not enacted by my representatives, because my picks weren’t in office to vote on it. I still disagree with it, I always will, and overall I’ve become very disillusioned with Congress because it has a habit of continuing to pass new laws that are enforced unfairly and ignores the fact that there are thousands of laws on the books that are good law and totally ignored.

These laws don’t do anything but promote inequality, and that’s a very sad thing indeed.

55

wow, way to read what isn’t there.

hate crime legislation doesn’t diminish people who weren’t victimized, it recognizes those that are. Kelleys’ example was a beautiful one - the “death to all blacks” graffiti should be treated as a different crime than “I love NSync” (insert boy band joke here).

and, as far as ‘well, it wasn’t my representative that did this’ comment wowiie. that’s great, so, because I didn’t vote for Bush, does that mean that I’m exempt from all the laws for the next 3 years?? wow. Cool.

56

I can’t speak to what outrages or does not outrage Beeblebrox, but I defy anyone to disprove that the death and destruction of 9/11/2001 near-unanimously traumatized the people of this country more than any other murderous and destructive act in recent history. Zaphod is dead wrong in discounting 9/11 as a hate crime. It is the perfect example of a hate crime. Two-thousand odd innocent people were obliterated for the simple reason that a gang of anti-American bigots hated every single one of the people in this country and felt justified in killing a random large number of Americans along with any other people who happened to be associated with those Americans. In case the reader is still not clear as to why 9/11 is a hate crime, I urge her/him to replace the word “American” in the previous sentence with the political, ethnic, gender, or sexuality adjective of her/his choice as an illustration of the point. I find it insulting and that Beeblebrox would dismiss the hate factor of 9/11 as “hyperbole”.

57

You’re not exempt from the law any more than I am, but you can’t tell me I have no right to complain about laws I disagree with just because ‘your representatives enacted them.’

I don’t think one instance of graffiti should be treated any differently than the next. You obviously do, and if you want to convince me you’re going to have to give me something a little better than ‘it just should be.’

Graffiti is a crime. So why should it be handled differently based on the thought expressed? Because the law says some thoughts are less bad than others?

58

People who aren’t being victimized don’t need protection. Kinda like how fish don’t need raincoats.

59

No, because some graffiti causes greater injury than others. I am of the firm belief that there should be some relationship between the gravity of punishment and the gravity of the crime. And I think the fact that a criminal acted out of malice or hatred for another person solely because of that person’s group identification is ample grounds to consider that crime more grave than one where the criminal did not act out of malice or hatred for anyone in particular. Your average graffiti artist has no malice toward anyone in particular, just a callous disregard for property rights. The guy who paints racial epithets on the side of a church, however, is acting with quite obvious malice toward the members of that church and of the community in which the church sits. I think it is wholly appropriate to punish malice more seriously than callousness, and I think that we are further justified in identifying certain forms of malice as especially pernicious and punishing them even more vigorously.

Obviously, you disagree. You clearly believe that the government has no right to contemplate whether a crime was committed with malice (aforethought or otherwise). If one person causes another person’s death, put the first person to death. Don’t even inquire as to why, just do it.

I fear your concept of justice.

60

Two points of information:

  1. “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” DOES NOT equate with “I do not agree with what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it, even if it breaks the law.”

  2. The hate crime doctrine isn’t about punishing ones beliefs, it’s about punishing criminal actions committed in furtherance of those beliefs. A subtle but important distinction.