Which is, of course, already in practice. Our criminal justice statutes are riddled with distinctions based on age. Former adult rapists do not have to inform the community authorities in the state of New Jersey when they wish to move in after serving their time in prison.
Opponents of hate crimes laws fail to see that everyone is protected equally. Christians, Wiccans, straigh folks, gays…everyone. That the vast majority of hate crimes are perpetrated by straight, white males is in no way relevant, for the law would protect them equally if they were the victims of hate crimes.
How does your objection to a possible abuse of a hate crimes law, likely perpetrated to avoid a potential frivelous lawsuit on the part of one of the victims, in any invalidate the necessity or the logical justification for hate crimes laws in general?
Yes, because the second offender’s act is more heinous because it was motivated by a motive which we, as a society, have determined is more antisocial. Beating up on someone is bad enough, but beating up on them because they’re different than you are is worse. If my child was merely beaten up by someone after his lunch money, whereas my neighbor’s was beaten up by someone who didn’t like him because his mother is a lesbian, I have no problem at all with a more severe punishment for the latter.
Do you have a problem with that? Why are you defending the non-right of bigots to avoid being punished for the antisociality, when that behavior crosses the line into criminal conduct?
Yes, because the second offender’s act is more heinous because it was motivated by a motive which we, as a society, have determined is more antisocial. Beating up on someone is bad enough, but beating up on them because they’re different than you are is worse. If my child was merely beaten up by someone after his lunch money, whereas my neighbor’s was beaten up by someone who didn’t like him because his mother is a lesbian, I have no problem at all with a more severe punishment for the latter.
Do you have a problem with that? Why are you defending the non-right of bigots to avoid being punished for the antisociality, when that behavior crosses the line into criminal conduct?
I am for punishing people for their crimes, not for thier thoughts. To me if two people commit the same crime they should receive the same punishment. Otherwise some people are more equal than others in the eyes of the law.
I understand that some people want to punish prejudice because it is so noxious but drawing distinctions between victims only perpetuates the divisions in our society.
There was an interesting article in the LA Times Sunday Magazine a few weeks ago.
It turns out that California has some hate crimes laws of the “do a hate crime – add XX years” variety. The problem is that once your local DA gets a tool like this he applies it every chance he gets so he can say: “Look, I am tough on crime, I have even prosecuted XX people for hate crimes!”
Unfortunately, he never gets the Nazi’s, he gets the poor black mentally ill folks who lack self control. One example they gave was of a young man who had a problem with anger – he could get angry at anybody. But, because he was caught on tape assaulting a young woman, the DA went for a hate crime. Another was a young man who called someone a name on a bus. It turned out the perp was of the same group as the victim! But they charged him with a hate crime, anyway.
I see hate crimes laws becoming like RICO. Used in many places where the people who write the laws would say: “We never meant for the law to be used like that!”
KeithB makes a good point. While these laws are intended to be statements of values or sops to certain groups. Once they are on the books they can be used to harass certain groups and that rascist prosecutor that was hypothesized earlier could use them against minorities. If you have one set of laws for everybody this possibility goes away.
Federal jurisdiction is limited. They can’t just jump in and take over a case because it is a hate crime. They didn’t jump into the James Byrd Jr. case. THey only jumped into the case of the Jewish school shootings because during the rampage a federal postal employee was murdered.
One of the things I like about hate crimes legislation is that the man at the top, Mr. President, is clearly stating that these kinds of crimes are unacceptable in this society. Period.
I dunno - to me, it says something when lawmakers, and particularly the Big Cheese, take a stand against long-standing discrimination, violence and hatred. YMMV, of course.
No one is arguing for non-punishment of a criminal act. Puddleglum’s example is not at all far-fetched, it’s a clear example of how 2 crimes, with the exact same motivation (lunch money) can result in 2 different types of penalties and “justice,” thanks to needless legislation. The fact is, a thought (however heinous or disgusting it might be) is not punishable. An act is. Legislation will not now nor ever alter prejudicial thoughts, only education can. I have never been comfortable with the idea of “hate crime” laws because they are redundant to laws that already exist, and cater, IMHO, with a sense of “pity,” to minority groups.