Hate Crimes Laws: assumptions

Great Debates
1

Hate Crimes Legislation, or, the why and hows.

Obviously, society has been affected by hate Crimes legislation. Depending on the motive for a crime, prosecution may be in State or Federal courts for the same act. I am not here to debate the good or evil of these laws, though I have my opinions. (Against them)

I think the central difference between Pro and Against HCL (Hate Crimes Legislation) is one of assumptions. This assumption takes this principle form in Pro HCL groups:

The motive for an act should affect the punishment for it. Moreover, racial, religous, or sexual-orientation motivated crimes are worse motivations than others. Therefore, we should ‘promote’ criminals to a higher court.

Wheras, I think Anti HCL groups look at it this way:

Motive may be important for punishment and determining guilt, but only to the extent of the normal criminal procedures. Placing jurisdiction in federal hands does nothing to stop these crimes. One cannot say that a given action is worse than an identical action solely because of a relationship, however silly or one-sided, between the attacker and victim.

Therefore, the point for determinign the good or bad of HCL becomes one of assumption. Who is right? As I have mentioned, this is why I oppose HCL in its present form.

This on first glance presntsa problems forme, eing a deontological Catholic moralizer. My other theories would seemt o present motive as the key link. Nevertheless, I reconcile the difference by understanding that an intense hatred of one group does not make a crime worse than an identical actions (say, Assault and Battery) done for money or spite.

2

:confused:

“Federal hands”? Nearly all “hate crimes” legislation is state and local. Do you have any authority for the proposition that a hate crimes law turns an otherwise local crime into a federal crime? TO my knowledge, the federal proposals would simply enhance the penalty for an already existing federal crime.

3

minty is dead on. Federal hate crimes legislation will not convert what would otherwise have been a state crime into a federal crime.

As it happens, federal hate crimes legislation will have a minimal impact. Practically speaking, it will effect only crimes that are committed on federal property - where not so many crimes are committed.

Now, if you want to talk about an outrageous extension of federal criminal authority, let’s talk about the federalization of carjacking. :mad:

Sua

4

Isn’t it obvious? cars can go across state lines which automatically makes it a federal case…:eek:

5

I was under the impression that HCL was being promoted in Washington, as well as the various states. From that beginning, certain crimes become Federal ones. Like the recent debate over the HCL bill in Congress.

6

My understanding is that the new HCL being floated in D.C. right now would give Federal Prosecutors the option of filing Federal HC charges if local authorities choose not to do so. See this article.

7

SB: Absolutely, HCL proposals are “being promoted in Washington.” But not exclusively in Washington. Hate crimes legislation is proposed and voted in, in each jurisdiction, for crimes applicable to that jurisdiction.

AFAIK, the only grounds on which there have been any proposals for the Federal government assuming jurisdiction over an otherwise state-jurisdiction crime is in the extension of hate crime protection to the existing statute which makes it a federal crime to deprive someone of their Fourteenth Amendment protection as a U.S. citizen to the equal protection of the laws. (I.e., if a state statute (in most cases an antebellum one still on the books) makes something a crime when committed by a black, a woman, a Jew, or a gay man when it would not be if committed by a white, a man, a Christian, or a straight person, then the Fourteenth Amendment ought to come into play to protect that person from the invidious discriminatory classification.

(Memo to nitpickers: I assume the meaning I place on “discriminatory” in that last sentence is clear from context.)

8

Ye gods, I think my understanding of the legislation was way off - I think this is relevant parts of the current bill in question:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d107:11:./list/bss/d107SN.lst::|TOM:/bss/d107query.html|

If this is the correct bill (and I admit that I do not trust my skills in searching for pending legislation), I’m mortified. It’s the carjacking law all over again - indeed even worse. The carjacking bill (arguably) simply supplemented overwhelmed local law enforcement. Here, the intent is to allow federal law enforcement to substitute its judgment for that of local law enforcement. Bad idea.

Sua

9

The link in my last post looks all screwed up, but it does work.

Sua

10

Polycarp I am trying to understand what you just posted. Are you saying that federal HCL is there to protect classes of people from selective prosecution? According to the article I posted a link to, the current proposal in D.C. is to make any crime a Federal crime when it is motivated by race, sex, etc… I don’t see any mention of 14th ammendment protection from selective prosecution there. Maybe you could clarify?

11

Sorry for the double post, missed Sua’s on preview.
Wasn’t there a case, Lopez v. Arizona or something like that involving a Federal gun law that tried to link interstate commerce and education to a simple crime that the USSC tossed a few years ago? IANAL but I would guess this bill would be headed for the same fate…

12

I have to admit I may be wrong about what’ being proffered (mainly by Demos right now anyway) but I can’t read legalese… yet. If my understanding is incorrect, can someone show a cite in understandable English about what is going on.

13

Rhum is correct on Lopez v. Arizona. Lopez was also the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Morrison a year or two later, in which the court overturned the Violence Against Women Act as unconstitutional. It was the same reason: the Federal government isn’t empowered to pass this kind of legislation.

The argument for the bill in either case is that Congress’ power to pass those bills fell under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. constitution (Article I, section 8). The tenuous theory was that selling guns in school zones or abusing women would have a negative impact on interstate commerce (i.e., abused women are less likely to travel or spend money; selling guns in school zones leads to deaths at schools, which affects students’ ability to concentrate, which makes grades go down, which makes dumber kids, which impacts the economy)…THEREFORE by passing those laws, Congress was protecting interstate commerce. In the aftermath of Lopez, Congress wrote the VAW Act to have a stronger link to interstate commerce, but the Court didn’t buy it.

This is basically a states-vs.-feds thing. Being more of a constitutional traditionalist, I see the court’s point: these kinds of laws are best left to state legislatures.

14

Your OP has many elements of the facts about it (and thanks to you and Rhum Runner for alerting me about this issue), but is understandably a bit off.

Let me translate the section of the bill I posted earlier.

  1. Congress defines certain things as “hate crime” (the definitions may be fodder for another GD, but they aren’t relevant here, which is why I snipped 'em - a futile gesture, I’m sure, towards keeping this debate on topic. :D);

  2. Congress then defined the circumstances under which the feds could charge a defendant under federal hate crimes legislation. They are:

  3. Where travel across a state line or a national border (by the defendant or the victim) is part of, or the result of, the crime.
    This is a typical, and perfectly acceptable, application of federal criminal jurisdiction. In many instances, only the feds would have jurisdiction in such circumstances.

  4. Where the defendant uses a “channel or instrumentality” of interstate or foreign commerce during the conduct of the crime.
    This means using such things as an airport to help commit the crime. I think the typical use would be using the U.S. Mail (or Fed Ex) to send a letter bomb, etc. Again this is a typical and acceptable application of federal criminal jurisdiction. Again, in many instances, the feds would be the only ones with jurisdiction.

  5. when the weapon used in the crime traveled through interstate commerce
    This is extremely broad, and may very well run afoul of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lopez and Morrison. Basically, it means that if the gun (or even baseball bat) used in an attack was manufactured out of state, then shipped into the state where the defendant is (even simply to a store), the feds claim jurisdiction.
    And

  6. where the hate crime interferes with economic activity or otherwise affects interstate commerce
    Ridiculously broad. This basically means that (a) if the victim was at work, buying things at a store, or otherwise engaged in economic activity, or (b) if the crime “affects” interstate commerce - which could include simply that the victim ended up in the hospital (the health care industry affects interstate commerce, and the victim missing work affects commerce), the feds have jurisdiction. Again, this probably won’t pass constitutional muster.

But let’s get to the real problem.
The legislation says that the feds should get involved if:

  1. The local authorities either lack jurisdiction or don’t intend to exercise jurisdiction over the crime.
    No problem - that makes sense.
  2. The local authorities ask the feds to step in and take over the case.
    Again, no problem.
  3. The feds ask to take over the case, and the local authorities don’t object.
    No problem - this is particularly useful when the feds have a larger federal case going on involving the defendant.
  4. When the U.S. Attorney General or his/her designee believes that the verdict or sentence wasn’t tough enough to serve the feds’ goal of deterring/eliminating bias-motivated violence.

This is a huge, huge problem. It allows the feds to substitute their judgment for that of the local prosecutors, as well as the judge and jury who tried the case. That’s simply outrageous.

Basically it means that if a defendant is tried and found innocent and the feds think he was guilty, or even if the defendant is tried and found guilty, but the feds feel he should have gotten more time, the feds can prosecute the guy again for the same crime.

Bleh.

Sua

15

Sua as posted, doesn’t that run seriously afoul of the spirit, intent if not the letter of prohibitations on double jeopardy?

16

I agree with what Sua has stated here.

Without reaching the prudence of HCL in general, would anyone like to step up to the plate and defend the interpretation of the commerce clause that Congress seems ready to adopt again with this bill? (This despite the fact that the USSC has told them, twice it seems, that you just can’t get from here to there?) If so, would that same person like to make an argument that we ought to amend the Constitution to grant a general police power to the Feds? (which this interpretation would accomplish by default)

As an aside, isn’t it a shame that Congress will pass these laws, knowing full well that they will not pass Constitutional muster in the courts, simply to reap political points with certain constituencies?

17

Well, I certainly think it does. But it’s very possible that the Supremes wouldn’t, unfortunately.
Civil rights prosecutions violate (in my mind) double jeopardy all the time. Remember the Rodney King nastiness? The police officers were found not guilty in state court, but guilty in federal court afterwards.
Double jeopardy is supposed to attach to all charges arising out of the same event or transaction. A prosecutor cannot withhold particular charge in order to have an opportunity to hold a second trial if he loses the first.

But somehow, this doesn’t apply to federal retrials. I’m sure there is a legal theory as to why - and I’m sure I don’t agree with the theory.

Sua

18

I’m not sure what I think about hate crime legislation, but I do know that I disagree with the way the rationale for them is often presented by opponents.

Hate crimes should not be different from other crimes because of what’s in the mind of the criminal: most people can agree on that.
Rather, the potentially legitimate rationale is that they cause additional harm on society in the form of inflaming racial rancor. This is relevant because it is an intended harm beyond the crime itself. Many hate crimes, in fact, are directed at particular groups in order to send just such a destructive message: you blacks aren’t safe. You homos are gonna get it. Just like terrorism is worse than a similar act with no attempt to link the act to the “sending of a message,” hate crimes cause harm by signaling out certain groups. The KKK didn’t lynch blacks simply because of their hatred: they also did it to show blacks that they had better stay in their place.
Hate crime laws are intended to strike back at such fear mongering.

What’s most debatable, however, is whether established racial hatred towards the victim, for instance, is alone a “hate crime.” I would argue that there has to be evidence of intent to damage community relations or cause terror in a certain group. In practice, however, these two things might be almost impossible to separate.

19

Oooh, and then blame it on the Supreme Court, to boot. I wasn’t in law school back in '96 when Morrison overturned the VAWA, but I’m guessing the court took a lot of flak for overriding it. My guess is the same thing would happen if and when the court overrules any hate crimes legislation.

On the other hand, we noticed in my Con Law class that a lot of the lower federal courts like to narrowly interpret these federal police laws, ruling things like “this law is only unconstitutional as applied to these facts.” :confused: It’s like the courts can’t support the laws, but don’t want to get in trouble for another commerce ruling. I’m guessing that we’d see similar results with hate crimes laws.

20

That is one rationale, but not the only potentially legitimate one. Hate crime laws can also be viewed as a protection, rather than just a punishment. Witnesses need extra protection from those who would benefit from their death, cops need extra protection from criminals, and various groups need extra protection from people who hate them. I’m not sure if I completely agree with this, but there is precedent in this kind of protection.

Do federal prosecutors have the power to retry a case if they don’t like the verdict? Is this only restricted to hate crimes?