Imagine if there has been a rash of home invasions in my neck of the woods. They attacks focus on middle class individuals coming home late at night. I’m a middle class individual who often times comes home late at night. They have added to my life a very real concern that this could happen to me. This amounts to terrorism in my book.
Point is a lot of other crimes raise concern for the people of a neighborhood or city. Hate crimes are hardly unique. And I don’t recall many other dragging deaths after Byrd. So explain to me how it is more dangerous for black people there then there was before?
Texas certainly does have a hate crimes law, Marc. It was passed by Ann Richards. However, it is weak and ineffectual, and considered by many to be unconstitutional. Its language is entirely too broad, mandating maximum sentencing for anyone who commits crimes against “groups.”
When the Byrd family wanted to specify the language to describe exactly what groups it was protecting, Bush let the proposed legislation get squashed in committe.
kelly I work in an “at will” state. We still have protected groups. If I understand you correctly, our state would only allow redress by those special groups. However, a non-“at will” state would require a “good reason for everyone.”
I have no problem with hate crime laws for violent crime. I like strict sentencing.
I have problems with protected classes in employment laws mainly because I get to deal with the suits against us (mostly frivolous) and because I feel that they do not address the problem (in general) which is that the classes are underrepresented because they fail to apply.
They are also a bit too idealistic for me. Surely people are treated unfairly by slack jawed mouth breathers because of their color or orientation. But people are demoted or fired for a whole mixture of things. More often, I see minorities kept on far too long because of their protected status. Teh real rule is “cover your ass really, really good if you have to fire a protected class because we will get sued even if we are justified.”
I can’t see firing an employee for being gay, and I would despise anyone who did so, but I think that the effect of the law is “you can’t fire me because I am gay.”
But Hey, I am conservative AND an employer, so I am way too biased.
Most murders, particularly the heinous examples referred to are somehow triggered by hate. I’m not black or gay, so I can’t answer for them whether these specific incidents triggered a fear that caused them to lose Constitutional rights. I will tell you that when the woman was decapitated in my neighborhood, my wife did not go to the grocery store alone at night for some time thereafter. To the best of my knowledge, that murder had nothing to do with the discrimination and it frightened and thereby influenced the shopping habits of whites, blacks, hispanics, orientals… the entire community.
Most people will lose freedoms when a murder occurs in their neighborhood. It would seem more territorial than anything else. If a black man is killed in my neighborhood by some heinous means I am going to be cautious until the responsible party is apprehended. Their motive has no impact, just the fact that they are warped enough to commit such a crime is sufficient evidence to influence the way I live my life. If I find out later that the killer was acting on racist pursuits, I’m not going to breath deeply and say, thank God it was for racial reasons, I was safe after all. I am going to be just as thrilled that they got the killer off the streets.
It seems that barring a swasticka carved into a victim’s body as a sign, or a black person being lynched, the only way to determine if a crime was a hate crime is by the admission of the guilty parties.
Not many people will do that when faced with a harsher sentence.
Once they are caught, if the current law permits them to be kept off the street, there should be no further infringement on anyone’s rights.
The argument concerning a local jurisdictions failure to pursue criminals for hate crimes, I believe to be a flashback to yesteryear, but assuming that were a problem, I personally would have no opposition to a federal Hate Crimes Law where murderers can be tried at the federal level regardless of the reason or a minimum sentencing is created.
Where a hate crime law might make sense IMHO is in a case of arson or vandalism, cases where the crime is intended to make a statement and the maximum punishment under non-prejudiced circumstances does not meet the damages caused by the act. But then, you have to tread lightly around Freedom of Speech issues.
AND if a hate-crime law does need to exist, I have no problems with throwing sexual orientation in with any other reason for discrimination.
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.
Esprix, I am just wondering if hate crime laws really are a deterrrent. If someone is willing to assault or murder another, I would think that they are already ignoring some strong deterrents. Is an extra 10% on the sentence going to stop such animals?
Individuals may not admit to it, but the preponderance of hate crimes that have achieved the attention of the national media have involved several perpetrators. The Byrd and Shepard cases are just two of many. Sure, one of them might not be willing to confess to a hate crime, but the evidence has shown that the others often will.
Where exactly is this infringement on anyone’s rights? There are sentencing guidelines for so many other issues, namely premeditation, etc. Why do people have such a hard time adding hate to the already long list of guidelines?
Wrath
Because in communities where there is a hostile climate against certain groups, individuals may expect lighter sentencing. Hate crimes legislation mandates that killing gay people even in the most slack-jawed, homophobic community whose local judge happens to be the town fundie, the perpetrators of crimes motivated by hatred of traditionally victimized groups will not go unpunished.
Why is this so much worse than any other kind of sentencing guideline?
If they live in a community in which they think they can get off relatively lightly if they kill the town fag, sure it might stop them.
I agree that 10% more punishment probably won’t mean a thing to anyone willing to commit the kinds of crimes we are talking about. However, a federal hate crimes statute might have an effect.
As some mentioned some jurisdictions may be more likely than others to turn a blind eye or at least give a reduced sentence to some hate crimes. A federal law helps catch the jerks who squirm through the state net. Even if it does not discourage people from the act in the first place it would at least keep them off the streets longer or offer a second chance at putting them away for some amount of time.
I will admit that this sort of thing (a federal law standing behind state laws) almost smacks of double-jeopardy which is kinda scary.
One of the effects of the way civil rights statutes (and others, such as the National Labor Relations Act) have been enforced is to effectively require employers to have “good cause” to dismiss anyone except a white non-union male. This, to me, is an unfair result. The law actually requires a “nonpretextual reason”, and the degree to which the court will entertain the possibility that the offered reason is a pretext is proportional to the degree of protection offered to the dismissed person’s group: a court is much more likely to find pretext when the dismissal appears to have been for race, rather less when it appears to have been for gender, and rather unlikely to when it appears to have been for union activity (under the NLRA).
It is certainly the case that people abuse the civil rights laws, making it hard for an employer to fire an incompetent minority employee. I tend, myself, to believe that the ill effects of this misuse of the law is less than the ill effects that would continue if the law was absent. But as societal attitudes change, this might cease to be true, and at such time the legislature should consider whether changing the law is in order.
Maybe we’ve reached that time already. Personally, I doubt it.
Indeed, a major reason for the existence of federal civil rights legislation is to provide a federal basis to prosecute people who commit atrocious acts motivated mainly by race and escape punishment because of state court systems that have – or at least had – a vested interest in ignoring those offenses.
It is questionable that generic “hate crimes” legislation falls within the scope of the 14th Amendment’s mandate to prohibit the denial of equal protection upon which the Civil Rights Act hangs its hat.
“There are sentencing guidelines for so many other issues, namely premeditation, etc. Why do people have such a hard time adding hate to the already long list of guidelines?”
Quoting me:
“I personally would have no opposition to a federal Hate Crimes Law where murderers can be tried at the federal level regardless of the reason or a minimum sentencing is created.”
So are we in agreement yet?
Just take out the specialized groups and make it an all-encompassing federal law against heinous murder and I am with you.
Regarding the infringement of rights, I was addressing the concern that by a crime being prejuciciously purposed, there was a violation of that groups Constitutional rights. Once behind bars, I allege there are no further violations to that groups rights. I agree, there is no infringement of rights.
With fire at will, we don’t have to prove a good reason for termination; rather the protected ex-employee has to show that we fired him for the wrong reason.
In non “at will” states, it would seem to me that the employer has the burden to prove a good reason and the employee has no burden. It would seem to me that this would be a case of absennce of evidence proves evidence of absence. Correct?
It seems to me that in the latter case, the accused has a much greater burden (in a civil sense.) I guess I would prefer a situation where the accuser has to prove that their case has merit rather than vice-versa.
I had no idea Texas had any kind of hate crime laws on the books. What was the law called, any idea when it was passed, and is anyone convicted under it?
Bush did the right thing. I don’t think any group or individual needs special protection.
But just ask any death penalty opponents about the statistical deterrence value of a potential death sentence conncected with a particular crime. The death penalty has generally failed as a deterrent. How in the world would stiffer sentencing via hate crimes laws be any more of a deterrent?
Do groups have constitutional rights? I though most constitutional rights attached to individuals.
Sure, the individuals IN a group have constitutional rights, but let’s not go jumping to fallacious conclusions.
Finally, just what “constitutional right” is being violated when one private person kills another private person? (Most people have no idea what their “constitutional rights” actually are.)
The term “thought crime” comes to mind. I have no objection to the proseuction using “hate” as a basis for proving motive. I object to harsher sentences simply because some people feel bad about the crime. And by the way I do object to several other sentencing guidelines for variety of issues.
You aren’t interested in punishing hate you’re interested in punishing bigotry. It is possible to hate someone for a variety of reasons. Perhaps a man hates his wife’s brother-in-law so decides to kill him one day.
**
Federal hate crime laws only apply to federal crimes. So in most of those communities you’ll probably see state jurisdiction on hate crime cases. Hate crime laws do not equate to a conviction it simply requires a harsher sentence. Thus in those “slack jawed, homophobic communities” there is no stronger liklihood of conviction.
I don’t think any law, threat of prison sentences, or even the death penalty deter people. Certainly hate crime laws won’t either.
“I had no idea Texas had any kind of hate crime laws on the
books. What was the law called, any idea when it was passed,
and is anyone convicted under it?”
Dunno, but GW claims that it exists. But he lied about sentencing all three men to death so you may want to check that out. (grin)
It would be interesting to see how many of these cases actually come up. Is the existing federal statute being utilized?
It was stated that Byrd’s case didn’t come up under federal law because it wasn’t a federal crime.
Was this the federal statute used to try the police officers in the Rodney King case?
That is of dubious constitutionality. Why would you make all murders federal offenses? And if only heinous murders qualified, where do you draw the line?
Hell no.
Then you are standing on your own, JAG.
MGibson
I am not exactly sure, and am having some difficulty digging up reliable stats. But I do have the language.
The statue authorizes the court during the punishment phase of a criminal trial to enter a finding that the defendant “intentionally selected the victim primarily because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group.”
For the past year, activists have been trying to get the legislature to name groups specifically, to make it conform to existing Winsconsin hate crimes legislature that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. As it is, the vagueness of this statute may not pass constitutional muster. The action failed.
I find your attitude to be bewildering. How do hate crimes laws protect any individuals or groups? For example, if you assault a gay man, you will be charged with assault, not murder. If merely punching out a local fag lands you a charge of first degree murder, then I can understand why people would object. Certain groups would be given extra protection.
But how does the possibility of heavier sentencing in the sentencing phase amount to extra protection? The crime has already been committed, and the defendant has been convicted fairly. No one is being given any extra protection; rather, society is demonstrating that it does not tolerate certain kinds of behavior. You don’t have a problem with child molesters receiving maximum sentences, yet children are being singled out as a “group.”
So I’d ask again, what’s the big deal?
I understand how people might object to the peculiarities of individual pieces of hate crimes legislation. I object to many of them myself. But objecting to them in principle on such specious grounds is not logical.
the theory is that giving a larger sentence for hate crimes will deter crimes against others for specific reasons. Those groups that are listed will receive teh extra protection of (supposedly) decreased deterrence.
Let’s be realistic here, these laws are not passed because of the rash of crime against straight honkeys. The point is to decrease crimes against blacks, jews and gays.
Now, if there was a law that said " you get 2 years in jail for punching a black, but 10 years for punching a white" would that law be OK?
Or how about " if you hit your own kind, you get 1 year; if you hit someone different from you just because they are different, you 10 years."