The Necessity of Hate Crime Legislation
Posted by
Kevin
This is flat wrong:
The U.S. House will vote this week on a bill that would add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to the federal hate crimes law. We don’t need it. Some gays say that they would oppose it if no one else was covered by such laws, but since they are we are. But we don’t need to insist that we are a minority needing special protection by the thought crime police. All these bills do is create enhanced penalties for behavior that is already illegal. Beating me up because I’m gay should lead to the same punishmennt for the perp as beating me up to get my wallet. It would be the unusual thug who intended to gay bash but, because of the possibility of an enhanced punishment under a law he probably doesn’t know exists, decides not to.
The people who would beat up Mike because he is gay are not common criminals — they are terrorists. People who would beat up Mike because he is gay are not just attacking Mike. In a very real sense, in fact, Mike would be incidental to the actual crime. Any gay person would have done, which is the point of both the crime and the laws meant to combat it. People who assault homosexuals because they are homosexuals are attempting to terrorize an entire group of people. Their crime is not just the assault but also the threats to other people the initial beating represents. “Stay in your closet or this will happen to you too” is a very real threat and it has very real affects on people. Not punishing that aspect of the crime would be a travesty. This is not a matter of mythical “special protection” and these are not “thought crimes”. It is a matter of justice for all the victims of the crimes committed and hopefully preventing such intimidation in the future.
Link via Nashville is Talking
[…] UPDATE: Kevin at Lean Left begs to differ. Spread It Around: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback 5/1/2007
If you beat someone up, you beat them up. I don’t think motivation should matter in law. Someone was beaten up and there is a penalty for it.
Comment 5/1/2007
SU
As I pointed out, thats not all they are doing. Are credible threats of violence now somehow not punishable crimes? And motivation matters for a whole host of crimes — it’s the difference between murder and self defense, for example. Why is motivation as a component of the crime only a problem when it would give protection to unpopular minorities?
Comment 5/1/2007
To your questions: No. Who said it was? Like I said, the crime of beating someone up is beating someone up. I don’t care if it’s a white dude beating up a black dude or a black dude beating up a white dude. Justice is blind and all that.
Comment 5/1/2007
SU
Your ignoring my points.
1)More than one crime happens when somone is attacked only for being of a certain group. Why, pray tell, is the threat against the larger community somehow not worthy of justice?
2)Motivation is a critical factor in dozens of crimes — even in the existence of crimes. What reaosn do you have for not considering motivation in a hate crime?
Justice may be blind, but She doesn’t have to be stupid.
Comment 5/1/2007
Is there a bigger penalty for a hate crime than there is for an assault? If so, that’s pretty sad because it then says if you are not part of a special interest group, you are not worth as much.
Comment 5/1/2007
BU
Nonsense. It says that if someone tries to use your assault as a threat of violence against others of your group, then that person will be punished both for assaulting you and for threatening other members of the community.
A fed law also has the advantage of allowing the feds to go after people who commit these crimes even if the locals wont - -in the same way that the feds used civil rights laws to get murderers in the 60s that white juries would not convict. Not as big a problem now a days, but not unheard of either.
Comment 5/1/2007
“And motivation matters for a whole host of crimes — it’s the difference between murder and self defense, for example.”
LOL Self-defense is not a crime.
Comment 5/1/2007
Okay so the hate crime law is federal while assault is local. That makes more sense to me.
Just to be clear though, if I was a fat white guy and I was threatened with assault by someone who hates fat people, am I protected by current hate legislation in the States?
Comment 5/1/2007
BU
In your fat guy case, I don’t know. I think if someone attacks you solely because you are a member of a certain class of people, then they should be subject to hate crime laws. but these things actually tend to be written very, very narrowly for political and constitutional reasons. So I don’t know what the reality of the law is, but I think it should cover all such cases.
Comment 5/1/2007
Interesting. Thanks for the insight.
Comment 5/1/2007
Uncle:
Let me try to put this another way. By your reasoning, there should be absolutely no difference between third-degree manslaughter and first degree murder. In both cases, the criminal has wrongfully killed the victim. The only difference concerns the circumstances surrounding the killing, and those circumstances dramatically alter the associated punishment. So the question YOU have to answer is, why should circumstances matter for killing, but not for assault? Or are you seriously suggesting that circumstances should be ignored for killing, too?
Comment 5/1/2007
“By your reasoning, there should be absolutely no difference between third-degree manslaughter and first degree murder.”
Err, then you’re not getting my reasoning because that’s not the case at all. I should have expanded more on what i meant by motivation. Your example differs in terms of degree of the crime (i.e., one may be a planned killing and the other due to negligence). I’m referencing the target. If you plan on killing a white dude it should have the same weight of law as killing a black dude.
And since we haven’t had a refresher in a while, what’s a straw man?
Comment 5/1/2007
Uncle
“If you plan on killing a white dude it should have the same weight of law as killing a black dude.”
Not if you planned on killing ANY white dude. That’s a hate crime - -a crime whose intent is to punish and terrorize and entire class of people. It is not just an attack on that one white guy, it is an attack on all white gys - -a message for white guys to stay away and cower, because they could be next.
Comment 5/1/2007
“It is not just an attack on that one white guy, it is an attack on all white gys - -a message for white guys to stay away and cower, because they could be next.”
You know that hate crime legislation isn’t about punishing black guys who beat up white guys. At least be honest and admit that it is for certain protected minorities. Tell us the last time that any hate crime was charged when the victim wasn’t a member of a protected minority. This whole thing is about punishing people for thinking the wrong way.
Comment 5/1/2007
The first recent one that I found in a quick Google search was a California case from last Halloween, in which a group of black teenagers assaulted three white women. They were charged with hate crimes.
Hate crime laws are used against racial-minority perpetrators who target whites pretty frequently, actually.
Comment 5/1/2007
“Hate crime laws are used against racial-minority perpetrators who target whites pretty frequently, actually.”
Sure they are.
Comment 5/1/2007
Ha! In the face of contrary evidence, Fred cuts and runs.
Uncle:
OK, so instead of comparing 1st murder with 3rd manslaughter, let’s use a closer example. The difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is often premeditation — in other words, whether you thought about it before you intentionally murdered someone, or whether it was simply a crime of passion. So again, state of mind and motive are relevant, and do impact the punishment; thus, my point stands.
I also don’t recall anyone here accusing anyone else of a straw man. I certainly wasn’t trying to mischaracterize your argument; I was just using a counterexample to show why your argument was crap.
Comment 5/1/2007
WHO’S BEHIND ‘HATE’ LAWS ?
To find out, Yahoo “The Earliest ‘Hate’ Criminals” while it is still legal in America to read it! Marge
Comment 5/2/2007
“Ha! In the face of contrary evidence, Fred cuts and runs.”
Yeah, right. The statement is made that black guys are beating up white guys and then a poster uses one example of white gals(not guys) being beat up by black guys and that somehow proves that hate laws are used “frequently” against minorities. You are a strange person to think that my not being impressed is cutting and running. LOL
Comment 5/2/2007
Fred, you wrote “Tell us the last time that any hate crime was charged when the victim wasn’t a member of a protected minority.” I gave you an answer — there was a high-profile case in which such charges were filed just last Monday.
Seems to me the ball’s in your court to show that this was an isolated, aberrant circumstance.
Comment 5/2/2007
“Seems to me the ball’s in your court to show that this was an isolated, aberrant circumstance”
Why don’t you prove that hate crimes are “frequently” used to prosecute minorities? The ball is in your court.
Comment 5/2/2007
“So again, state of mind and motive are relevant, and do impact the punishment; thus, my point stands.”
Not in reference to my point, which was that of what color the victim happened to be and not the state of mind of the perpetrator.
Comment 5/2/2007
SU
Then you aren’t arguing against hate crimes laws, now, are you? Because intent is one of the key elements of hate crime laws.
Comment 5/2/2007
Fred, if one racial subpopulation is the greater beneficiary from a law against racial crimes, that doesn’t mean that that subpopulation is preferred by the law, it means that it’s more victimized by criminals.
Comment 5/2/2007
Kev, read what I wrote.
Comment 5/2/2007
Uncle:
What Kevin said. It seems that you’re not arguing against hate crime laws, but instead arguing against restricting hate crime laws to apply only to certain protected classes.
Comment 5/2/2007
Kevin and SU,
You are talking past each other. You agree that motivation of the criminal can affect the nature of the crime. You agree that an arbitrary feature of the victim cannot affect the nature of the crime. The point is that “hate crimes”, i.e. actions that are otherwise crimes and are motivated by the victim’s membership in a group, are distinguished from the bare crime by the motivation of the criminal, and the features of the victim are evidedence of that distinction. Not all black-on-white crimes are hate crimes, but no black-on-black crime is due to hatred of whites. (Okay, so we can contrive an example where a black who helps whites is killed by another black for that help. Doesn’t affect my point.) Proving a hate crime is a lot more than showing that the victim is in a particular group. It also requires showing that the criminal has a particular opinion of the group, and then concluding that that opinion motivated the crime.
Comment 5/2/2007
“It also requires showing that the criminal has a particular opinion of the group, and then concluding that that opinion motivated the crime.”
At least you are willing to admit that hate crimes are an attempt to criminalize opinions. Most liberals are not willing to do that.
Comment 5/2/2007
Dan M., is it a crime in Canada to speak against homosexuality? Can someone publicly get up and condemn homosexual acts?
Here is a portion of an article about this subject:
“Thought Crime
Becomes a Reality
in Canada
An interview with Michael O’Brien
An abbreviated version of this interview with Michael O’Brien appeared in the August 15, 2004, edition of Our Sunday Visitor. The interviewer is Thomas Szyszkiewicz. Reprinted with permission.
The Canadian Parliament recently passed Bill C-250 which amends the federal hate crimes law to include speech against sexual orientation. Some Canadian groups have complained about it, saying even the Bible could be seen as hate literature. What’s wrong with what was passed?
O’Brien: A number of aspects of the new law are profoundly disturbing. For one thing, there already exists in Canadian law abundant protection of human rights, including protection against discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation.” What is distinctive about the new law is the criminalization of negative criticism of homosexuality as such.
While the bill was in formation in Parliament two crucial amendments proposed by the conservative opposition party were defeated. The first was to ensure that religious pastors and teachers would retain full freedom to teach traditional Judeo-Christian view on these matters. The second was an attempt to make a distinction in law between homosexual persons and homosexual activities. The Church does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns sinful activities–activities that are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any public criticism of homosexual activity is a hate crime against homosexual persons, punishable by jail sentences.”
This is what some people want for the U.S.
Comment 5/2/2007
Fred:
At least you are willing to admit that hate crimes are an attempt to criminalize opinions.
Nice try, but it simply doesn’t follow. Hate crime laws don’t criminalize the opinions; the criminalize acting upon those opinions to the direct harm of others. It speaks poorly of your intellect that you are incapable of distinguishing that difference. Not that this is surprising.
Bottom line: You can hold all the vile opinions that you want, but when you start committing illegal acts (specifically, ones that directly harm and intimidate others) in the furtherance of those opinions, you’ve crossed a line.
Comment 5/2/2007
I would describe hate crime legislation as an attempt to classify certain crimes, not an attempt to criminalize opinions. I don’t expect that distinction to be decipherable by Fred, but everyone else should be able to understand what I mean.
In response to a previous comment about murder, I offer an example on the other end of the spectrum. Graffiti. Does it not make sense that the harm done by spray painting KKK on a black person’s house, or a swastika on a Jewish person’s house, causes more harm than some random tagging? It is in cases like this where hate crime legislation resonates the most for me. Cases where the intimidation factor clearly overshadows the specific, immediate harm of the criminal action.
Comment 5/2/2007
“I would describe hate crime legislation as an attempt to classify certain crimes, not an attempt to criminalize opinions.”
So if someone commits pre-meditated murder because he wants to get some life insurance he should be given a break because he didn’t hate the person he kille? Maybe we need greed crime legislation.
“I don’t expect that distinction to be decipherable by Fred”
I can decipher that you want to punish people more for having unapproved opinions about their victims.
BTW, who is going to decide what constitutes “hate”?
Comment 5/2/2007
“Bottom line: You can hold all the vile opinions that you want, but when you start committing illegal acts (specifically, ones that directly harm and intimidate others) in the furtherance of those opinions, you’ve crossed a line.”
I’m smart enough to know that you want extra penalties for people who commit “crimes” who hold opinions you don’t like. We already have punishment for murder, assault, theft, etc. Additional penalties are based on the thoughts, thus it is a thought crime.
Comment 5/2/2007
We already have punishment for manslaughter. Additional penalties are based on the thoughts, thus murder is a thought crime, too.
Comment 5/2/2007
“We already have punishment for manslaughter. Additional penalties are based on the thoughts, thus murder is a thought crime, too.”
The problem comes when you start adding special penalties for bad thoughts about a politically protected group of minorities. I ask again, who is going to decide which thoughts about which groups are bad enough for additional punishment? I’m sure liberals will be waiting in line to protect their special groups.
If I stand up and say that homosexual acts are sin and that someone who practices homosexuls acts cannot be the pastor of my church, will that be a hate crime? Don’t say no too quickly.
Comment 5/2/2007
Fred:
I mean this with all due respect: You are a fucking moron. And one for whom the term “cognitive dissonance” apparently means nothing. Unless, of course, you think that terrorism is no more of a crime than regular-ole-murder.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell it out for you, although frankly I doubt you’re even being intellectually honest about this anyway. The opinions, in a vacuum, are okay. Someone with vile opinions who commits a crime unrelated to the furtherance of those opinions is only guilty of the direct crime he’s committed. But when someone kills or assaults another with the intent of intimidating an entire group, that’s a more egregious crime than simple murder or assault. You can’t possibly be so stupid that you can’t see this difference. Or maybe you can.
Maybe if I wedged it into your pitifully narrow worldview, you’d understand better: instead of some Christian nutjub beating the crap out of a gay guy for being gay, make it a Muslim blowing up an American for being an American. Should this form of terrorism be not at all a crime, if not for the fact that he killed someone? By prosecuting this Muslim as a terrorist, instead of just as a murderer, are we becoming the “thought police” and criminalizing anti-American opinions?
It is neither the intent nor the act that makes it terrorism — it is the combination of the two.
(For that matter, by this reasoning, we shouldn’t ever charge people with attempted murder… we should only charge them with the crimes they successfully committed that did direct harm.
Comment 5/2/2007
Fred:
I ask again, who is going to decide which thoughts about which groups are bad enough for additional punishment?
We do, collectively, through our elected representatives. That’s why it’s called “representative democracy.” That’s how it works. And there’s no constitutional prohibition to stop us, since we’re not criminalizing speech or expression, but action. You don’t think it’s a good idea? Argue against it, and convince others to agree with you. We think it’s a good idea, so we argue for it. Intentional intimidation, especially through acts or threats of violence, ought to be a crime, from where I sit.
I knew you had fascist tendencies, but this sort of anti-democratic sentiment (as if the people don’t have any right to pass such laws through their representatives) surprises me even from you.
You’re right on one thing, though:
The problem comes when you start adding special penalties for bad thoughts about a politically protected group of minorities.
You’re right. It would be better to pass a law making it an extra crime to attempt to intimidate any group of people through violence and threats of violence, rather than just certain protected classes. I don’t care if it’s white people, black people, gay people, straight people, Vikings fans, etc. Hate them all you want, I don’t care. But once you single them out for violence because of who you are and to send a message to their “kind,” this is a more egregious crime than just randomly targeting someone for a mugging, and should be treated as such.
If I stand up and say that homosexual acts are sin and that someone who practices homosexuls acts cannot be the pastor of my church, will that be a hate crime?
Not under any law I would support. Your right to be a closed-minded, bigoted asshole is something that I will protect to the death. But you have NO right to act out against and intimidate those people you’re bigoted against. Hate black people all you want, but burning a cross in their yard isn’t just “free speech,” and it’s not even mere trespassing or vandalism. That you can’t see that it’s something far worse than that says volumes about you.
Comment 5/2/2007
[…] In another thread, SayUncle says: If you beat someone up, you beat them up. I don’t think motivation should matter in law. Someone was beaten up and there is a penalty for it. […]
Pingback 5/2/2007
Tangential question: How often do systematic hate crimes, such as the acts of some KKK, get prosecuted under RICO, since it constitutes a pattern of intimidation?
Comment 5/3/2007
” Intentional intimidation, especially through acts or threats of violence, ought to be a crime, from where I sit.”
From where you sit you are calling for criminal prosecution for someone who “intimidates” s person of a protectied class. What do you mean by intimidation? If someone proclaims another person a sinner for his actions and makes the person uneasy, is that criminal intimidation? Acts of violence and threats of violence are already crimes in most states.
Comment 5/3/2007
Tangential response. I am not a lawyer, and have never played one on TV, but I would say that the KKK fails to meet the enterprise criminality requirement for RICO to be applied.
Comment 5/3/2007
Thanks, Ted. Quite right. That was a brain-o on my part.
Comment 5/3/2007
Fred:
A hypothetical. In scenario A, I pile my leaves on my (white) neighbor’s lawn and set them ablaze. No one is harmed, and no damage is done to the neighbor’s property. In scenario B, I erect a wooden cross on my African-American neighbor’s lawn, and set it ablaze; no one is harmed, and no damage is done to my neighbor’s property.
So the question for you is, are Act A and Act B equivalent acts, or is one more egregious than the other. If you think they are, then frankly, you are an idiot with no sense of history. And if you think they aren’t equivalent, then please explain to me why the two acts shouldn’t be treated any differently under the law.
Comment 5/3/2007
A hypothetical: A conservative speaker is attacked onstage as she gives a speech. The attacker is arrested for disorderly conduct and assault. A homosexual is attacked onstage as he gives a speech. The attacker is charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and a hate crime. Would the difference be because she is not part of the 33 (or so) protected classes?
“no one is harmed”
Your point breaks down if there is no harm. I thought the point of designating certain offenses as hate crimes is to punish for the harm that is done by hate speech. If there is no harm, where’s the tort? You really don’t make much sense.
Comment 5/4/2007
Fred,
First, should we take your response to be (a) “The two cases of burning are morally equilavent.” or (b) “The two are different, and ‘conservatives’ are also a hated group.”? Be specific, (a) or (b).
Second, either you’ve done a poor job of listening, you’re being disingenuous, or you really have failed to understand the slightly sloppy writing of Tgirsch. In his hypothetical, the phrase “no one is harmed” means “no physical harm is done to a person or any property”. In the earlier discussion, the “harm” of hate speech is non-physical. The harm is the threat of violence and the intimidation. Now try re-reading Tom’s comment.
Third, are you referencing the assault on Ann Coulter? Indeed, she was assaulted because she is hated (because she’s a hatemonger and a disgusting shill, but that’s irrelevant). This leaves two questions. (1) Was the assault on her done to threaten or intimidate a group of which she is a member? (2) Does that group deserve the protection of law?
The public statements of her assailants, as well as the larger political structure, answers (1): Sort of. There’s a world of difference between being threatened with being beaten to death and with being pied in the face. The group that is being targetted is precisely those who advocate abusing other protected groups. (And note that Coulter advocates abusing a lot more than gays. She plays not only a sexual bigot, but also a gender bigot, a racial bigot, a class bigot, and a political bigot. These are groups that society does agree deserve protection.)
As to (2), it’s pretty clear that only a minority of people support the like of Coulter. Even most “conservatives” detest her vitriol and pandering. Just calling Coulter “a conservative speaker” shows a complete lack of understanding of both her politics and the well-publicized reasons for her assault. So, should it be as much a hate crime to assault conservatives as blacks? Yes. How about bigots? I don’t think so. Part of the point of laws is to protect those most harmed. If bigots start being regularly attacked on the streets for who they are, sure, add them to the protected classes. Until then, they can suck up the pies in the face.
Comment 5/4/2007
Its really very simple. A hate crime is defined by the intent to terrorize or intimidate an entire group of people, not merely to attack one person.
In the graffiti example, simple tagging is vandalism. Spraying a swastika on a Jewish home is an attempt to terrorize and intimidate all Jewish people in the neighborhood into leaving their homes and to prevent others from considering moving there.
Intent is ALWAYS an element that is considered in crimes - that’s why we make distinctions between murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. In each case, intent is one of the primary factors in the degree of the crime the killer is charged with and with the sentence he or she will receive upon conviction. Often very fine distinctions are made - as in Texas, for example, which hair-splits between Reckless Homicide and Negligent Homicide.
It is the threat against an entire group of people based solely on some group determinance - their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or whatever definitions people use to distinguish between the “us” and the “them” - that makes a hate crime more than just a personal attack. The concept is (or should be) just as true if a White person or a Korean immigrant, for example, is attacked in a predominantly Black neighborhood because of his race or the color of his skin.
It is an attack not only on a person, and not only on a group of people, but on the very principles we need to live by if we are to remain a civilized society.
Comment 5/5/2007
Hi,
Amazon has a nice offer which ends Monday, Jan. 28, 2008 - you can get 5 HD-DVDs for free
if you buy a Toshiba DVD player.
More about this on Bargain Hunter http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com
Comment 1/25/2008