Hate crimes seem to be a hot issue in the election this year. Here are my objections to hate crime laws:
They are unneeded. The acts they criminalize are already illegal. Murder, assault, arson and vandalism are already illegal are are severely punished in most cases. Does anyone think that bigots are going to say “Hey we cant kill this person, we might be charged with a hate crime.”? I could see if there were people running around commiting crimes that were not being prosecuted but there are not.
The killers of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd are all going to be executed should they put executed twice because of their choice of victims?
They are punishing not actions but thoughts and motivations. By definition they are attempting to punish hate. I may disagree with hate groups vehemently but they have a right to their political opinions and hate crimes are designed to punish twice once for the act and once for the opinion that caused the act.
They are unconstitutional. The constitution provides for equal protection under the law. If the law provides different penalties for different classes of victims those not covered under the law are receiving less protection.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, three days, 13 hours, 22 minutes and 15 seconds.
8302 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,037.78.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 19 hours, 50 minutes.
They are needed because not all jurisdictions will punish crimes as they should be. Don’t believe me? Mississippi is only now looking into doing a murder investigation on the three civil rights workers murdered 36 years ago in Mississippi. Back then, when Mississippi refused to investigate the case, the federal government prosecuted some of the suspects for civil rights voilations. The maximum sentence served was six years. Not enough in my book but at least the criminals were somehow made to pay (to a small extent) for their crimes.
The law frequently punishes based on motivations. We have first, second and third degree murder laws. In each one a person was killed but the law distinguishes based on motivation and I believe this is appropriate. Killing a person in the heat of the moment is different from planning their murder in advance and carrying it out. What you are complaining about here is simply more of the same concept.
I don’t know enough to sya whether or not this is unconstitutional. However, the law has, in the past, made accomodations for people more likely to be abused. As a white male I am not protected by discrimination laws but then again I am FAR less likely to be discriminated against than a black woman. In this case I do not share the same protections afforded to the black woman but I likewise have less need of protection. It’s unfortunate that special cases need to be made but I can see the rationale behind it.
True the man who cooperated with the police in the Byrd case was sentenced to life in prison, but since this is a usual tradeoff cooperation for reduced sentence I do not think a hate crime law would change this.
I agree that 40 years ago my first objection would not have been as valid but the fact that they are opening a 36 year old murder case in Mississippi is testament to the changed times.
The distinctions in the first, second and third degree murders are based of intentions not motivations, Did the accused mean to kill the person, not why they killed him.
I wonder if anyone can define what a punishment ‘should be’, without injecting their own bias into that definition.
The penalty phase of a trial has always been left up to a jury of peers. (Subject to judicial review. IIRC) The different ‘degrees’ of murder, are sufficient, IMO to justly punish people that kill because of hate, another ‘degree’ need not be defined.
puddlegum we legisilate thoughts all the time. Intent and motive are specific parts of many laws, with certain intents and motives increasing the severity of the offense.
Ex: Murder - can include first degree, second degree, manslaughter etc. We legislated difference in penalties based, not only on the offense but the INTENT and MOTIVE of the offender. Murder for hire in many jurisdictions is considered to be a higher classification of the crime of murder than the "in the heat of passion " type.
The difference is not motivation it is there are mitigting circumstances in the case, extreme emotional stress.
If you find out your wife is having an affair and track her down days later and kill her the punishment is the same as if you did it for the insurance.
You are correct but you are separating the two incorrectly. The law takes into account motivation because it can be a mitigating factor. By all means, however, motivation definitely counts in a court room.
In general I agree with this but it needs to be taken into context.
If all hate crime laws are intended to do is add 10 years (or whatever) to a sentence then I think they are of dubious use.
However, I believe a federal hate law speaks to the issues raised in what happens if a jurisdiction isn’t as dogged as it should be in tracking down criminals.
Say I live in some jerkwater little town where everyone is a member of the local KKK chapter. If I kill a black man who was just passing through I can expect better treatment across the board from the judicial system than I would if I did the same crime in Chicago.
In this case say the Sheriff is the Grand Poobah (or whatever) of the local KKK. Even if he investigates the case and arrests me I’ll have a better go in court where the jury of my peers consists of a bunch of other black hating yokels.
A federal hate crime would be able to catch crap like this that falls through the net. I doubt it would be used much otherwise (much like civil rights laws that could be applied in many cases are only used if the feds feel justice was subverted [or for political expediency] as in the police officers in the Rodney King case).
good point. I’ll admit I don’t know the specifics of Hate Crime legislation. I agree that a law that tacks on x_penalty serves little or no use. Your description of an oversight action of the feds may serve some purpose.
Is it worth giving up equal protection under law for a hypothetical example of a backwater sheriff?
Can you give an example of such a thing occuring. Under the scenario you gave the prosecution would no allow the jury to be filled with black-hating yokels, or is he in on it too? You have a rascist sheriff, prosecutor, judge, and jury, all conspiring to get a murderer off. Very far fetched.
Perhaps a bigotry-motivated crime needs to be taken out as a criminal offense and put into the realm of civil-liberty offense then, to be charged in a civil court case and not criminal court. Does that make sense, thereby avoiding being charged twice for the same crime?
If you are the victim of a hate crime you can already sue in civil court. For wrongful death, destruction of property, pain and suffering, etc. No new law is needed.
Sure…I’ve already done so twice. The Rodney King trial and the murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi that is only now being investigated 36 years after the incident.
I’ll grant you my hypothetical is extreme in that every member of the judicial system (sheriff, jude, jury) are all sitting very far to one side of the fence. Still, the Mississippi murders show that indeed some cases simply aren’t pursued (the DA in this case?) and in the Rodney King trial a jury composed of mostly (or completely?) white people didn’t seem to get the job done.
The civil rights workers and Rodney King were big news so in both cases the feds were compelled to impose civil rights actions against the suspects. How many times has this happened when it’s not a big media event? I have no idea but it wouldn’t surprise me if cases were pursued with less diligence than they deserved on many occasions because the prosecutor or police were sympathetic with the criminal.
The Mississippi murders happened 36 years ago, I have already stipulated that my first objection would not have been as true then.
In the Rodney King case the officers were arrested and tried and if convicted would have served long prison terms. This was not a case of a jurisdiction overlooking a crime, it was either that they did not have strong case(I did not follow the trial) or incompetence(After watching the OJ trial I am suprised that anyone is ever convicted in LA).
