It is a complex subject, not easy for everyone to understand. But apparently some people think hate crimes are tantamount to legislating thoughts, and so should be unconstitutional. My question is simply this: How will the U.S. Supreme Court react if this subject comes before it? Will they probably rule it unconstitutional?
Also, will someone please explain to me a little more about hate crimes and criminalizing thoughts. I think I understand it, but am not entirely sure.
The Supreme Court has already heard challenges to hate crime laws and upheld the laws. So you can see what they said for yourself. See, for example, Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
IMO, if you stab somebody for example, it should be “attempted murder” with the same punishment whether the victim is black/white, christian/jewish, infant/elderly, fat/skinny, whatever/whatever.
If there are laws that call for the same action to be treated differently, based essentially on the victim’s identity (and I think there are), I see those laws as unconstitutional. I would hope the Supremes would see it that way, but you never know.
Additional punishment would only be warranted based on the perp’s history, not on the victim’s identity.
Ahah. If the issue is not the legality of the crime, but the legality of special sentencing, then I can see how it could be an issue.
I could see adding extra time to the charge if it’s found that people who commited hate crimes are more likely to commit further hate crimes than people who commit regular crime to commit further crimes. If not, though, I don’t see any particular advantage to allowing it, and see how it could be abused if it is.
It’s not a new concept. Other crimes are recognized as being worse than the actual act because of the motives. Murders done for hire or to prevent a witness from testifying carry more severe penalties in many jurisdictions. Legislating that a murder committed as a hate crime merits more punishment than a murder committed for “normal” reasons is essentially the same principle.
Here is what the SCOTUS has already said: Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioner 24-27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-15; Brief for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as Amicus Curiae 18-22; Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 17-19; Brief for the Anti-Defamation League et al. as Amici Curiae 910; Brief for Congressman Charles E. Schumer et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9. The State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, “it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.
On preview Richard Parker already linked to the case.
I believe the justification is that hate crimes are directed against a larger group than just the individual victim. If I dress up in a white sheet and kill a black man, I’m not just killing one person. I’m also attempting to terrorize other black people with the implied threat that they could be victims of the same crime.
That makes some sense to me. Now, the slippery slope: What if you kill a black man wearing no sheet, but they discover privately that you’re a racist (say, your journals or interviewing your mother)?
The issue is not whether the perpetrator is a racist but if they selected their victim based on his race. If a racist kills a black guy because he screwed his girl friend or because he stole from him then the hate crime enhancement will not apply. As to how can we know why somebody kills another, it is subject to proof at trial. If testimony is provided that the defendant said “Lets kill the black guy cause I hate black guys” could be proof of hate crime. “Lets kill that black guy because he stole my truck” would not support the enhanced penalty.
But this is a little different. There is no “free speech” right of murder for hire or witness intimidation. As bad as we may think it, racism is a form of protected thought or speech. To enhance a penalty for a crime because of that thought is a terrible contradiction to the first amendment, regardless of what the SCOTUS says…
I mean, lets put it this way:
Illegal to hate black people? No. (unconstitutional)
Illegal to kill a person? Yes.
Illegal to kill a person (yes) because you hate black people (no)?
But has our society gone to the point where it is WORSE to kill a person because you hate his race, and BETTER to kill someone because you wanted the 4 bucks in his pocket?
Place a value of 4 dollars on a human life, that’s understandable; be a racist (which is a protected form of thought) MORE PUNISHMENT!
No one is saying people cannot be racist or think racist thoughts, just that if they kill people or destroy property because of a persons race they will be punished more harshly. It is a manifestation of our societies disapproval of crimes motivated by bigotry and hatred. It is not saying that killing someone for 4 dollars is better just that killing someone because of the color of their skin is an aggravating factor. Do you agree that states have the power to pass legislation that is not prohibited by the state or federal constitution? Do you agree that killing someone because of their race is not protected under free speech? Do you see that that slippery slope you seem to be worried about is neither slippery nor is it a slope?
