I am sorry that you feel that way, Struct, but if you can not distinguish a war crime perpetrated against a nation-state from racist teenagers spray painting racial slurs on a black man’s garage, I feel sorry for you.
However, I will not belabor the point any longer. Any further comments regarding wring’s tasteless hyperbole will go unheeded by me. This thread has been chasing it’s tail too much as it is.
Oh, KellyM, are you still making assumptions about what I think?
By the way, I don’t think language causes victims. Someone wants to call me names, hey whatever. Someone wants to scream epithets about my race - well aren’t they an ignorant turd. Someone wants to spraypaint it on my wall, ok, now they’ve done property damage. I want them punished for the damage they did to my property.
I really don’t care what words they actually spraypainted on my wall, because frankly I can ignore the content of what they said. But whether it was ‘I love N’Sync’ or ‘All _____ must die’, I still have to repaint the wall.
And struct, I’ve already said that people have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how awful I believe it is - and that I fully support punishment for illegal acts. But these crimes that are being committed are already crimes, so passing more laws regarding ‘hate crimes’ seems really pointless to me. Ok well maybe not pointless, because it sure looks good on a politician’s TV ad that he campaigned to pass laws against ‘hate crimes’. I also don’t think the punishment for the crime should be more severe because of the criminals beliefs, because it is basically a punishment for having those beliefs.
Say someone commits a crime that normally, if found guilty of commiting said crime with malice and forethought, would result in a prison sentence of five years. Now say the same person was charged with a ‘hate crime’ because that person is a racist, and the sentence is now 10 years. How is that not punishing him for his beliefs? It’s tacking on another 5 years because of what he believes. It’s a lot like ‘5 for the crime, and 5 for being a racist.’
No one said you couldn’t complain. You said (in effect) that the law shouldn’t be, unless I could defend it now, I pointed out that the law is, so you need to prove why it shouldn’t be, and then you came up with the 'well, I didn’t elect ‘em so…’ Fine, you agree that the law pertains to you.
Yes, I think absolutely one kind of graffiti should be punished differently, and have already given the reason. In the case of “I luv Boo-Boo”, the intent is to maybe cause one person’s embarassment, maybe to declare one’s love publically, maybe simply to deface some one’s property. However, the only people really involved are ‘boo-boo’ and the property owner.
In the case of “Go back to (fill in the blank) you (fill in the epitaph)”, not only is the property owner damaged, but the intent is to cause harm to a large number of people, all of whom fit the description involved. It’s the same amount of paint, but a different intent and different message.
I know that you understand this, 'cause you’ve indicated an awareness and acceptance that motive matters in other cases.
Motive matters here. We would not want to imprison boo boo’s friend for a long sentence, perhaps have them clean the property up, do community service, pay a fine. However, a jail sentence would be entirely appropriate for some one whose intent is to cause fear in a large group of people.
Just to clarify, my previous post was in response not to the post by Struct appearing directly above mine, but to his previous one. I am at the office and work delayed me from hitting the “submit” button.
As part of my ongoing struggle to keep myself as free-thinking and open-minded as possible, I have established within my thought processes internal checks and balances. One of those entities is the hypothetical law firm of esquires Lucifer’s Lawyer, Satan’s Solicitor, Beelzebub’s Barrister, and Abaddon’s Attorney, L.L.C. Unfortunately, I have just received a short communique from them via the Prince of Darkness’ Paralegal, which I feel obligated to share with the board:
“What about civil disobedience?”
As odious as I find catsix’s arguments, I may just have to agree with him to a certain extent. Civil liberty considerations can’t be blindly tossed out the window even in the arena of criminal conduct. I still think it’s perfectly valid to punish the spray-painting of “kill all the _______s” more harshly than the spray-painting of “Jack luvs Jill”, but what about a grey-area message like “bloody revolution now”? I’m of the opinion that sometimes it’s necessary to break the law in furtherance of a higher aspiration, as long as the action in question physically hurts no one. There should be a more compelling reason than “society finds this hateful and threatening to itself” in order to increase the punishment for a given action. Please assuage the concerns raised by the advocacy of my mental devil!
struct in the example you provide, I fail to see where there’s a targeted group that’s being intimidated (unless it’s governmental bureaucrats, which aren’t a classification under hate crimes).
Targeting a group based on their ethnicity, gender, orientation, nationality, race yep. Based on their chosen occupation - nope.
Beez sorry you feel that it’s hyperbole to point out that a group of terrorists (not a nation state) targeting Americans simply 'cause they’re American is a “hate crime”>
Ah, the narrowminded property-is-the-end-all-and-be-all-of-existence mentality. This attitude would be fine if the purpose of law was to “protect property owner rights” and nothing more. Fortunately, it is not. One of the avowed purposes of our government is to “secure domestic tranquillity.” Your superficial analysis of the relative harm of nonracist versus racist graffiti ignores the disparate impact of the two on domestic tranquillity.
Fortunately for those of us who care about more than just collecting possessions, our legal system actually does pay some concern to passing laws intended to make our society more “tranquil”.
The Supreme Court, unanimously, has said otherwise.
Hmmm. I see several things in error in this conclusion.
[li]You (the generic “you,” not you particularly, catsix) may hold whatever views you choose, and even express them publicly, so long as you do not interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There was an interesting article here recently about a divergence of opinion as to what actions the state chapter of the United Sons of the Confederacy should pursue. While not precisely on all fours with the topic of our debate, I think it’s safe to say that the New York Times or Newsweek would not have endorsed either stance as particularly politically correct. :)[/li]
[li]Aggravation or amelioration as sentencing alternatives do not constitute “more or less guilt” – anyone convicted of a crime (or pleading guilty) is equally guilty of the crime (Alford pleas to one side for the moment). However, the degree of culpability associated with the guilt and the degree of punishment to be imposed in consequence may vary. Are you supposing that the accountant who took five dollars out of petty cash to pay his cab fare home last Thursday night and the guys at Arthur Anderson who whitewashed and fronted for Enron’s financial chicanery are equally culpable and deserve equal punishment? Both are guilty of fraudulent conversion of money under one or another set of laws.[/li]
[li]The point to hate crime laws is that when a “hate crime” is committed, the impact of the action goes beyond the actual suffering of the victim, since, as suggested above, it sends a message to others belonging to the same group as the person targeted on account of his membership in that group that they too are to fear for their safety due to membership in that group. Note that generally such groupings are effectively unchosen characteristics. Because the impact goes beyond the actual individual damages, the punishment and its social statement to the community are considered appropriately structured to go beyond the “neutral” crime as well – sending the message to all members of the community that we as a community will not tolerate criminal behavior motivated by such attitudes, and to the members of the target group that they need not fear for their safety thanks to the criminal actions of a few because the community as a whole is not prepared to accept their being targeted.[/li]
[li]Finally, no matter how strongly it is stated, it seems impossible to get across to some people the idea that hate crime legislation does not target thoughts or beliefs, but criminal action posited on particular thoughts or beliefs that when carried out is antisocial. If I were a sociopath who believed that whatever I wanted ought to be mine, I could not be punished for that belief, but whenever I gave vent to that belief by acting to take whatever I wanted from another, I would be guilty of larceny, burglary, and/or robbery, and duly sentenced. Believing that all gay people should be dead is not actionable; acting on that belief certainly is. And I trust you can see how as a society with something like 10% gay population and 12% black population we need to protect ourselves including our gay and black members a bit more stringently from people who hold the opinions that gay or black people are less than fully human and therefore capable of being eliminated from society, than we need to ensure that every young man who is dropped by a girl does not suddenly decide that she or the guy who replaced him in her affections does not need to die. (Although ideally both ought to be done.)[/li]
I trust that you can now see the distinction between protected opinion and prohibited act, and why people might support the idea of hate crime legislation.
Finally, I can understand the POV of those who are opposed to it. Kirkland said it best a while ago – the punishment for any crime committed against anyone should be swift and sure, and nobody needs “special protections.” I can respect people who are themselves potential targets as members of “suspect categories” who oppose hate crime laws as unjust differentiation. Kirk, who does oppose them, and Esprix, who is trying to make up his mind on his stance, are two such people. A former strong debater, no longer part of this board, whom I’ve always considered one of my best friends, is opposed to hate crimes laws but strongly in favor of equal rights for everyone, and I have no problems with his stance.
I’d welcome your explaining precisely what your stance is and why you hold it, without the sort of quote-and-refute tactics usually used in GD, if you’re willing do do so, catsix.
[quote]
**
Just to clarify, my previous post was in response not to the post by Struct appearing directly above mine, but to his previous one. I am at the office and work delayed me from hitting the “submit” button.
[/quote**
[Obi-Wan Kenobi voice]
Use the quoooooooooote button, Zaphod…[/Obi-Wan Kenobi voice]
You’ll be glad to hear that you don’t have to worry your two little heads with sorrow for me, then, because I am perfectly cognisant of the difference in severity between the two examples in your straw-dummy rebuttal. That wasn’t the point I was making and you know it, and since you seem incapable of grasping the point that I was making, I’ll quit trying to get it through your thick skulls.
Which example was that?!?
Learn some manners, struct. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without being a jerk about it.
Touché. I’ll go wash my mouth out with you, minty green. :rolleyes:
This is pretty much what I have been trying to say only it seems struct is better at putting it in words.
But what quantifiable harm is actually caused?
Polycarp:
I am going to try to explain exactly what I think, so please bear with me because I am not in the highest grade of orators.
I believe ‘hate crimes laws’ are unnecessary because:
It lumps people into groups, some of which are considered to be more often victimized by others, and doesn’t really apply equally to all people.
I think that it could go too far, and that these laws while well intentioned could be dangerously applied to things that are free speech. Such as if, instead of graffiti, someone creates a website that says ‘All _______s go back to _______.’
They’re somewhat redundant to the laws we already have. Aggravating and mitigating factors were always something that was considered in the punishment phase of trial, including victim impact statements from the victims or family members of the victims for serious crimes.
I have a whole pile of inner turmoil over the idea of a law that punishes graffiti with one message more strongly than others. Some people are deeply offended by certain language, but I am not sure it’s a good idea to make a law prepetuating the idea that language can hurt people. It seems counterproductive to ‘rising above’ what people might say to you.
I can’t see how it fits into the harm principle. People keep saying that one form of graffiti is worse because of the ‘message’, but I have no idea what standard is used to determine whether or not harm was caused, and if there is one, it seems extremely subjective. ‘How do you know if it’s harassment?’ ‘If the person who thinks they were harassed says it is.’
I fear it will be unevenly applied because, even as stated on this board, the perception is that certain groups commit hate crimes while other groups commit crimes for ‘reasons other than hatred of a group.’ Even based on statistics cited here, we see that the actual filing of hate crimes charges are disproportionate. Would ‘All honkys go back to Europe!’ be treated the same as ‘All niggers go back to Africa!’? If it wouldn’t, then the hate crimes laws are not an equitable application of the law.
If you have any questions or you want me to try to explain better I’ll try to. Basically, I am completely infavor of equal treatment under the law for all people… but I have found that sometimes I try to explain logically why I don’t like hate crimes laws, and people just call me a racist. That hasn’t happened here, thankfully.
You are correct. According to those statistics, a disproportionately large number of blacks are identified as perpetrators of hate crimes. (17% of hate crimes, while being only something like 12-15% of the population). You’ll have to work out for yourself how that plays into your concern about who’s more likely to be charged with a hate crime.
Thank you for complementing my oratorical* prowess, catsix, but I’m sorry to say that the statement you quote was a setup. I was inviting the response that there are more compelling reasons to increase the punishment for hate crimes. I could name a few, but I’ve said enough for today, and I’d like to hear from some others.
*Can one really use the word “oratorical” in the context of a message board? 
But then what you’ve really said is that the current criteria of evaluating what is and isn’t a hate crime isn’t good enough - which means that the laws are flawed.
My main dislike of hate crime laws stems from the misuse of them to enhance sentencing to get the prosecutor a more “sexy” conviction.
Instead of actually considering the motive behind a crime, some prosecutors label anything they can as a hate crime. A former aquaintance of mine (a friend of a friend, we’ll call him Jon) was charged with a hate crime when he, while defending himself from attack, killed a homeless person. When the prosecutor found out that the homeless man had been gay, he tried Jon with a hate crime, even though there was absolutely no evidence showing that Jon knew the homeless man, thereby knowing he was gay, before the attack.
The prosecutor tried several times to get Jon to plead guilty to a lesser offense (manslaughter maybe?), and when he wouldn’t, the prosecutor charged him with a hate crime. Fortunately Jon was eventually aquitted by reason of self defense.
Hate crime laws are a tool, similar to the death penalty, that unscrupulous prosecutors can use to get more convictions.
A prosecutorial threat not backed up by any evidence is no threat at all. Given that “Jon” went to trial, can you tell us whether the jury was given any hate crime instuction, and if so, what the evidence was that tended to show hate was his motive? Remember, as a matter of law, the simple fact that a victim is a member of a protected class does not get the proesecutor anywhere near a jury with a hate crime question.
struct the ‘example’ I was talking about was your comments regarding graffiti encouraging civil disobedience.
it was a small issue.
KellyM excellent way of putting the issue.
I can’t; all of this was second-hand information. I presented this as anecdotal evidence of prosecutorial abuse using hate crime laws.
I recall that the prosecutor tried making the claim that Jon had been seen in the gay club at which the homeless man used to beg, but when a bartender from the club was called as a witness, he testified that he had never seen Jon before. I don’t know what other evidence the prosecutor thought he had.
FTR, Jon was convicted of tampering with evidence when he panicked and threw the knife he had used to defend himself into Town Lake. After he had calmed down, he reported the incident to the police and turned himself in. The homeless man did not die immediately; the police found him later, under a bridge, where he died (according to the coroner) from a combination of exposure and bloodloss.
Take it as you will, those were the facts reported to me.