I understand your statement about the murder horrifying all blacks, but it horrified most people, black, white, straight, gay. As did the stoning of that teenager for being homosexual. As does the story about a woman in my home state who went to the grocery store around 9:00 at night and was found beheaded the next day at a construction site. The murder was commited by the security guard at the grocery store.
Does the government need to delve into the mind of any of these murderers to see if they did it for reason of race, religion, or sexual preference? The way they carried out their murders was gruesome enough to deserve the harshest punishment allowable by law. If the law needs to be changed to make punishment harder, it needs to be done across the board, not only for some special interests.
stuffinb’s answer was a good one (I too remember this fromt the debate last night).
The ‘hate’ part of the crime comes in later. You will be arrested and prosecuted for beating the crap out of someone. If the jury also feels this was done as a ‘hate’ crime then they are essentially saying not only are you guilty of beating the plaintiff but you are also guilty of terrorising a specific group of people. That adds to the heinousness of your crime.
We all take a risk of being a victim if crime every day. However, imagine you’re black and living in Redneckville, Alabama. You now have the added, very real, concern of getting lynched just because you are black. This amounts to terrorism and no one should have to suffer that in this country.
“Two of the Byrd killers indeed received the death penalty. Bush had lied/was wrong/made a mistake when he claimed that all three were. One was given a life sentence.”
Doesn’t the idea of “hate crimes” continue to widen the rift between groups, and place minority groups into some “special status” of which hate protection is neccessary, rather than helping us to unite as one people, each with the same rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges of a free people?
Why would some pre-defined group have a special section in the law? Doesn’t that, by definition, make such a law prejudiced?
Sure, we’re all horrified by this. We all are NOT, however, seriously concerned for our lives when walking down the street UNLESS we happen to be gay or black (or any group that has hatred focused at it).
While I was living with my fiance, he became seriously ill and was hospitalized. The hospital would not give me his status. His mother told them not to talk to me. I had no right to visit him. That is when i came to support gay marriage. I knew that if we were married, she could not shut me out. What choice to gay partners have?
My husband can never father children. This is something we knew when we were married. Legally our marriage serves the same purpose a gay marriage would. I see no special right in allowing 2 men to marry or two women to marry.
But it is across the board. Hate crimes legislation does not allow a black man to kill a white man and face a lesser penalty than the reverse. The perpetrator of any kind of crime motivated by race, religion, etc committed by anyone is subjected to a stiffer penalty.
I do not understand why so many people find this idea problematic. As a society we have determined that premeditated crimes are more heinous than crimes committed on the spur of the moment. Furthermore, crimes that involve mutilation and desecration of the human body are considered more repulsive by society, and perpetrators of such crimes are often given maximum penalties.
The “government” delves into the mind of the alleged criminal to sort out charges and penalties all the time. Observe the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. What is the problem with adding another category? The precedent is there, and it is pretty clear that there is a social consensus that hate crimes are truly heinous.
Where is the inequality, and why do you think that hate crimes legislation is not across the board?
No, it doesn’t. White heterosexuals are protected by hate crimes laws just like members of minority groups. The fact that most hate crimes are perpetrated by members of a majority group in no way makes the law prejudiced.
I would love to “unite as one people.” Then I listen to Pat Buchanan’s remarks, which remind me exactly why hate crimes legislation is necessary.
Okay. disclosure first: I oppose hate crimes legislation as they are currently written/practiced.
That said, the arguments usually used to oppose them have always seemed specious to me.
Society has not witnessed a pattern of descrimination, denial of rights, violent oppression, etc. against white, heterosexual males who work in laundromats. therefore society has not seen fit to pass legislation intended to address that area of social inequality.
Inherent in our current hate crimes legislation are the understandings that: (1)the principals out nation was founded on require that large groups of our citizens not be prevented through intimidation from exercising the rights guaranteed under the Constitution; (2)The historical (and present) reality is that (1) has occurred and continues to occur. Hate crimes legislation attempts to redress this condition by recognizing that society as a whole has an additional interest which is being violated when crimes are used for the specific purpose of intimidating a class of citizens and driving them away from participation in the body politic.
That element is entirely absent from the “white heterosexual laundromat” example, et al.
The other argument often proposed against hate crimes legislatin is the “criminalization of intent”. This ignores the fact that intent is already an element of crime in our justice system. I drive my car into your car, killing you. If I lost control due to road conditions, I might be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If I drove into you intentionally, I might be convicted of murder.
Now – the reason I oppose present hate crimes legislation is because it does not follow the above model closely enough. If society believes that this problem is sever enough to require redress through the criminal justice system, then a law needs to be drafted which makes the specific intent an element of the crime, subject to the same standards of proof that apply to all other elements. It should not be enough to simply show that I drove my car into you and I do not like whatever ethnic/religious/sexual/racal group to which you happen to belong.
Let’s suppose the premeditation for a murder could be: 1) because you cut me off in traffic; 2) because your team won the Super Bowl and beat my team; 3) because your skin color is different.
Okay now. Hm. Look like they are ALL hate crimes. What henious crime DOESN’T occur out of hatred of some kind? Why must we make a differentiation for #3?
A crime perpetrated against a member of a particular group motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Hate crimes both seek to protect individuals who are members of traditionally victimized groups and to redress past wrongs. Hate crimes legislation is passed because the legislative representatives of society realize that there is a real problem.
Do supporters of winning superbowl teams compose a traditionally victimized minority? Do they all share in a certain unintentional characteristic that separates them from some perceived majority?
How about people who cut you off on the highway? Did the last punk who cut you off do so because he knows you are gay and hates you for it?
AS far as “special rights” outside of hate crimes (which is still a hijack I think) in essence don’t they simply convey the ability to seek legal redress? Adding sexual orientation means that they can sue if they feel that they got fired for that alone.
I would generally agree that all people should have the same rights. What I am uncomfortable with is trying to legislate how people treat others. People should be treated differently for smokking or having kids or being fat or ugly or stupid…but we can’t make the world perfect by legislation.
THe other problem I have is that while the law may state “sexual orientation and race” rather than “homosexuality and non-white”, there is a wink and a nudge that the latter is really what is meant. No one is trying to protect heteros. True, tehy don’t need as much protection, but I think that we should at least be honest about what is going on.
It may be more logical to make a law that states “no one can discriminate for anything except illegal behavior or poor job performance.” That is what we are shooting for, so why not just go for the brass ring?
Jeff_42 & Maeglin thanks for the assist, let me add to it:
It would be nice if we lived in a world where people aren’t singled out for crimes, but that’s just not the case. The government acted IMHO responsibly when they decided to make a federal issue out of this. There as has been proven, selective enforecement/malfeansance to certain crimes at the local level. The feds did the one thing they were able to by nationalizing enforecment of these types of crimes. It would certainly be more effective than investigating each and every police force to encourage them to protect all citizens.
Wrath There’s a clear difference in the situations you laid out. The guy who cut you off has clearly offended you in some real way, and though that motive is utterly stupid, it’s still a singular individual.
In number two, that’s not a hate crime, it’s a crime of passion, and while still stupid as a motive, retains a singular nature.
In number 3, the victim is singled out for nothing he has control of. He’s targeted because he had the audacity to be born. In this case your crime is not singular but encompasses a whole group of people, who were born simarily. I.e, could have been anyone else, born the same way be it gay, black, etc.
It just seems to me that every broken law needs to be looked at individually, as to motive, means, etc., and I see no reason why there needs to be additional legislation as to the reason or motive of the HATE involved.
In the (facetious) 3 examples, each one needs individual consideration, so IMHO, it seems like “hate crimes” are perhaps no more “special” than “crimes of passion.” While there is obvious differences in the examples, I wonder why one needs any more special consideration than the others.
Because federal sentencing rules only apply to people who commit federal crimes. Simple murder is not a federal offense; it’s a state offense to which state sentencing rules apply.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t even play one on television. I believe the federal hate crime laws are only applicable in a very narrow context. I think you have to be attempting to violate a federally protected right such as voting in order to be covered under their law. The murderers of James Byrd, Jr. in Texas were not prosecuted under any hate crime law because Texas doesn’t have them.
**
Well they also want the law to be expand the federal hate crime scope. But they’re hardly the only group who has such wishes.
If you think that the common-law rule that allows an employer to fire someone for “a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all” is reasonable, and further you think that nobody would ever be fired because he or she was straight, then a provision forbidding discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual preference is “special rights”. Of course, the same would be true with respect to race, if you believed that nobody would ever be fired if he or she was white.
I assure you that most “no special rights” people would squawk if a gay employer refused to hire straights, but that’s the exact right that they’re defending tooth and nail, just turned on its head. I think they’re not bothered by this possibility because they don’t consider it plausible that it might ever happen. It is illegal for a black employer to refuse to hire whites.
For those of us who don’t believe that “fire at will” is a good rule (and several states have, in fact, abolished fire at will and now require an employer to have a rational reason to dismiss an employee), holding that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee on the sole basis of sexual orientation (as opposed to, say, inappropriate workplace conduct) is merely a direct application of a rule that requires a rational basis for discriminating against an employee, and as such is not “special rights” but merely a specific application of a general right of the employee not to be discriminated against.
So, basically, it comes down to whether you’re an employer’s rights person or an employee’s rights person. Which pretty much boils down to whether you’re a liberal or a conservative. Surprise.
I don’t see how a hate crime sentencing enhancer amounts to “special rights” either. People who commit crimes motivated by hatred deserve to be punished to the maximal extent of the law. I don’t care why they hated the person they committed the crime against; the fact that they harbored hatred toward another and acted upon that hatred is proof that they are wholly antisocial people who reject the concept of peaceful coexistence and as such deserve to be removed from society.