Why should unequal crimes be treated equally?
The difference between enhanced punishment for assaulting a police office and enhanced punishment for a hate crime is that the former punishes the act itself, while the latter punishes the thought behind the act. If you kill a cop because you’re trying to establish anarchy or scare off the other cops, the punishment is no different than if you killed him because you didn’t want to get caught with the bag of weed in your car.
So you don’t buy that the spirit of “equal protection” means that all victims should be strictly considered people, none more privileged than others. You do think that the identity of the victim can be a factor in deciding the severity of the crime.
In other words, you disagree with Shodan’s reasoning. Is that right?
The reason killing a cop carries a stiffer penalty is not because cops are better people, but because killing a cop is an attack on the authority of the state. It is a completely separate issue. I also have no problem with a law that levies a more severe punishment for not yielding right-of-way to an ambulance than for not yielding right-of-way to a civilian turning right.
There is no guarantee that a crime classified as a ‘hate crime’ is an attempt to instill fear in a group at large, nor any guarantee that crimes not classified as hate crimes aren’t attempts to instill fear. Hate crimes are, in the simplest form crimes, motivated by hate. A crime against a black person motivated by hatred of black people is not necessarily an attempt to keep black people “in their place”. An act of gang-related violence might very well be an attempt by the gang to frighten the local population into submission. The idea that hate crimes and only hate crimes are intended to “send a message” doesn’t hold up. After all, if Joe murders the man who slept with Joe’s wife, he’s probably trying to send a message to other men who would consider sleeping with his wife.
Besides which, if you want extra penalties for those who are motivated by the desire to intimidate, you already have them. “Intimidation” already is a crime and in examples like the ones Villa offered, the second crime would merit a harsher punishment than the first, even in the absence of hate crime laws.
So an attack on a individual may have implications for society that carry beyond the simple fact that a person was attacked.
It seems we agree on that concept, but only disagree on whether an attack on the state is the only circumstance under which we should consider the message being sent to society by the crime.
This law does not treat groups of people differently. If you think it does, you are misinformed. If you kill somebody for being heterosexual, it’s a hate crime.
What is “Constitutional justification,” by the way? The Constitutional justification is that the Constitution gives the Federal Legislative and Executive branches the power to pass and enforce laws. What other justification is required? There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the government can’t call hate-based motivations for crimes an aggravating circumstance for sentencing.
To take it down a notch from the “murder is murder!” hysterics, I think most people would agree that painting a swastika on a synagogue is worse than painting a smiley face on a synagogue, and while they’re both instances of vandalism, there’s nothing wrong with the state deciding it might want to give the swastika painter a litle bit stiffer fine.
This kind of legislation just makes bigoted motives an aggravating factor in sentencing – it’s really just a variation of “depraved indifference” and is indicative of an individual who presents a greater ongoing danger to the public than someone who commits a crime of passion.
Personally, I don’t really care either way. I don’t feel like we need this kind of legislation, necessarily, but I also don’t see what harm it does. Why would it be so upsetting to people if guys who crucify gay kids on barbed wire fences get marginally stiffer sentences than guys who shoot somebody during a drug deal?
Could you clarify this? Are you saying that the animosity and prejudice were the crimes, or was there something else also?
That may be the lamest argument I’ve seen on this board in some time. By that definition, the Constitution givees the government carte-blanche to do whatever it wants. By the same logic, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the government can’t simply make homosexuality illegal and execute gays. But try running that past the Supreme Court.
It’s not that “out there” a view constitutionally. At the very least two members of the Supreme Court believe that government has the power to criminalize homosexuality; two more would likely hold that view given their judicial and constitutional philosophy. In their defense, they believe that such laws would be stupid, just not forbidden.
Not quite. Certain sexual acts, not an orientation.
But I think the real question is not what constitutional authority Congress has to do this, but whether or not it violates, presumable, the equal protection clause. But we already have the Supreme Court saying that different groups of people can be treated differently, depending on whether they meet certain criteria, so I think that’s a non-starter.
Personally, I don’t like these laws, but I don’t see that they do much harm, if any. I think they’re more “feel good” legislation than anything else.
There IS something in the Constitution to prevent that. The 14th Amendment. Congress can make whatever laws it likes as long as they are not unconstitutional. Hate crimes legislation is not.
What is the constitutional justification for Congress passing a law against murder? Please cite article, section and clause.
I am not misrepresenting anything. I am objecting to the current state of the law.
No. Violently resisting arrest, or assaults on police in the course of their duties, or assassinations of public officials, should be treated as severely as equivalent crimes.
The 14th is pretty much the reason why hate crimes can be considered un-Constitutional. Hate crimes deny equal protection.
Everyone is supposed to be equally protected by the law against assaults and so forth. But hate crime legislation is meant to offer a higher degree of protection to certain favored classes. Morally and logically, it is no different from saying that if a black man kills a white man, he will hang, but if he kills another black man, he gets prison time. Those kinds of laws discriminate based on the class of the victim.
It is always kind of surprising to see liberal argue that the 14th Amendment allows for this kind of discrimination for hate crime legislation, but not for marriage legislation. But then again, consistency of principle is not something for which the Left is famous.
Regards,
Shodan
No they don’t. No group is more protected than any other.
And I think it needs to be emphasized, that “hate crimes” are only a sentencing issue anyway. It’s not like it makes anything illegal that wasn’t already ilegal.
You are misrepresenting the law, and you just did it again. There are no “favored” classes. Gays, blacks, or Jews are not afforded any protections that straights, whites, or Protestants aren’t.
Let me amplify: if I am captured by Al Qaeda and they behead me because I am an American, they have committed a hate crime, and my status due to national origin to protected to exactly the same degree as is any minority who is subject to assault by a racist due to their color, religion, or whatever.
Last I checked, white was a race, European was an ethnicity, and straight was a sexual orientation. So that’s three different groups he belongs to that are protected under hate crime laws. Additionally, as he’s your husband, I believe there are spousal abuse statutes that could also come into play.
It wouldn’t.
And, for me, the reason it wouldn’t is contained right there in your description. These two crimes, even when we remove the homophobia of the perpetrators in the Shepard case, are not the same. One is a straightforward shooting homicide; it’s bad, and should be punished appropriately. The other is a homicide that also involves extended brutal torture of the victim. This is worse, for reasons that have nothing to do with questions of motive.
If you want to make comparisons like this, you should at least compare like with like.
For example:
Scenario A: Bad guy shoots and kills victim in order to take his wallet and car.
Scenario B: Bad guy shoots and kills victim because victim is gay/black/Jewish, and bad guy doesn’t like gays/blacks, Jews…
In both cases, we have a homicide. In both cases, absent further evidence, we can’t really assume that one of these bad guys is more likely than the other to commit the crime again. After all, there are plenty of gay/black/Jewish people out there, but there are also plenty of people with full wallets and nice cars.
While i appreciate that the constitutional issue is important in terms of what is legally allowable, for me it’s not the crux of the debate here. I’m arguing from a more general position that punishing bad acts is sufficient, and that punishing the thoughts behind them is problematic.
Despite the argument i’ve been making against hate crime laws in this thread, i pretty much share your position. If they asked me, i’d probably oppose hate crime laws, but i understand why they are passed, and it’s not an issue that i’d go to the wall over. It’s certainly less of a deal-breaker for me than a whole bunch of other legislative issues.
OK, then there is no such thing as gay-bashing, and we don’t need this legislation after all.
Regards,
Shodan