A term that one culture can use or say but another can’t – so intruders can be identified by it – is a shibboleth. Hate crime is a concept that so enrages the right that only they are able to defend it.
The hate crime amendment passed in the House Thursday struck me as an exercise in use of a term that denotes followers of the hatemongers who dare not speak their names, but rush to defend their right to their atrocities – a shibboleth.
Hate crimes and hate speech have caused deaths enough, the leadership has concluded, so in order to pass an amendment raising the stakes for it included that amendment in defense appropriations, a measure sure to pass. Predictably, an enraged wingnut faction defended hate vehemently and voted against the troops rather than offend the haters.
It was instructional to listen to some of the floor debate during this rather incredible discussion. The moment enjoyed some preparation by the wingers previous to debate, as well. The word two days prior to the debate, from GOP.gov, The Website of Republicans in Congress; “Members may also have the following concerns with including hate crimes language in defense legislation. Specifically, the provision (1) raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or other protected activities; (2) creates unequal treatment of victims by treating crimes against protected groups more seriously than non-protected groups; (3) encroaches on jurisdiction traditionally reserved to the States; and (4) violates the 14th Amendment the U.S. Constitution which affords equal protection to every citizen under the law.” (Emphasis added.) Strangely, these exact words came from wingers’ mouths many times during the ‘debate’ on the floor Thursday.
For my taste, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) as usual piled up the stinkiest load of garbage speech, insisting that the amendment was the liberals’ step that “will take our troops fighting abroad and attach a gay rights agenda” and concluding “What shame is there left?” Proudly joining in the fray for hate speech were minority leader Boehner – using most of the GOP.com line – and a host of the Beck/Limbaugh sort of ragtag hate speech promoters.
The Los Angeles Times picked out a few favorites.
“We should not be doing social engineering on this bill,” Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said.
“Shame on you,” he told Democrats.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said that Democrats had needlessly introduced a “partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan defense bill for our troops.”
“No member should be forced to vote for a partisan social agenda in order to provide for our troops,” he said.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) accused Democrats of hijacking the bill to “push their partisan agenda.”
It’s a division that gives all liberals a right to be proud, that we are not part of the defenders of hatred. The sad part is that there is a whole political party devoted to it.
They defend the worst in human nature. Shame on them all. They earned it.





76 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
I’m too lazy to go look up all the amendments to the DoD appropriations bills from the R in charge years that had nothing to do with Defense but all sorts of things to do with the R versions of social engineering.
So of course, they support hate.
Absolutely. Some interesting research; ” research showed that in the House, the new Republican majority ushered in a rise in partisanship in the appropriations process as they attempted to insert their substantive policy preferences in appropriations bills. ”
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/3/7/2/8/p137285_index.html
In my personal opinion, the R’s, being “religious”, should drop down on their knees and thank God to the very heavens that the Dems aren’t even APPROACHING the level of crap that THEY had to put up with from the R’s. That they continue to grouse and complain only shoes the level of entitlement they feel and their complete lack of compassion for anyone who isn’t “ME”.
We need the Media to start mentioning Right Wing Nut cases killing people and how they listened to Glen Beck, Rush etc we need Prison Interviews on tape with these criminals.
Or we can wait for another ATF bombing of a federal building we can wait until something happens that is to big to be ignored.
Excellent point on the GOP hypocrisy. But I’m not so sure about this:
Voting against defense spending is not voting against the troops. A good deal of defense spending goes to weapon systems and the like that have little to do with the troops. The Constitution specifically requires the Congress to decide whether to continue defense spending every two year, in order to ensure accountability to the public. We need to challenge the idea that defense spending votes are about the troops, otherwise we are unwittingly supporting militarism and empire.
Of course, the people you are quoting were doing nothing so noble. I just think they should be called out for bigotry and hypocrisy, rather than on these grounds.
Ruth!!! You!!!
You take on the heavy stuff. And, pretty much, there’s a lot of heavy stuff today.
My early morning included an interesting and thoughtful discussion with my husband about this whole Hate Crimes Bill. Over, coffee and turkey sausages, of course.
I saw some of Boehner’s sound bite/clips yesterday. As Gohmert said, ““What shame is there left?” Although, I may use that quote in a different manner than he did.
And, oh, the irony of this bill being attached to military spending just makes me reel.
Thank you, Ruth. Wither thou goest, I shall follow your posts. :)
Well, I am not a right wingnut and I think hate crime legislation is an abomination.
It DOES create inequality on the basis of personal characteristics such as race, national origin, sexual preference etc. I have a profound legal/Constitutional problem with “hate crime” laws. We already have laws for assault and battery, murder, intimidation etc. The same conduct, and level of conduct, should not have different laws and heightened penalties because it is targeted to a minority or other protected group. Why is the assault of a black worth more than an assault on on a white? Why is an assault on a gay man any more heinous than an assault on a straight? Why is one group of human beings entitled to more protection under the law than another? Yet, that is exactly what hate crime legislation does. This really flies in the face of the quintessential Constitutional and founding concepts of equal protection, fundamental fairness and all men being created equal.
Furthermore, it is my experience that prosecutors use hate crimes statutes much more as leverage to force plea agreements and prove defendants guilty simply on the basis of non-conforming speech and membership in gangs, fringe political groups and the like than they do for the righteous purpose intended.
IANAL and I know what you are saying and it makes perfect sense. But when a crime is committed BECAUSE you are black or gay or whatever, it seems to me that’s different. For instance, I have never heard of a group of gays beating up someone because they are NOT gay. See what I mean?
BMAZ
That was part of my philosophical (I think I spelled that wrong, nevertheless) discussion this morning. It raises a lot of issues, doesn’t it? I can’t recall the whole conversation, but issues of Knowing and proving what the original intent was is Impossible. And, it takes us to a whole different level of judging, doesn’t it? Many may argue with us saying that Hate Crimes are more evil. And, I wouldn’t disagree, but there is a moral dilema here for me.
Yes, and yet, I’ve heard some gays call me a breeder and said they would not listen to anything I have to say about anything. Do you know what I mean? Discrimination is not for the few. It’s a human trait. We’re all searching to survive.
It’s a razor’s edge, I think, and I really could argue either way.
Well, I am not a right wingnut and I think hate crime legislation is an abomination.
I think it may be you and me with regard to that position.
Re: Gohmert (the most appropriately named gooper ever). given the ridiculous rate re-election in the House – I tend to wonder – do constituents *ever* get embarrassed?
Strawman alert! It doesn’t make an assault on a black worth more. If a black uses anti-white hate speech against a white and then kills the white then the black is guilty of a hate crime. At least that is the way the law should be written. If a particular hate crime law is written in a way which favors certain groups then you should argue against that particular law, not against hate crimes legislation in general.
In the sense that the Death Penalty is not an affective tool towards deterring death crimes, you being an attorney, would you wonder what adding the Hate Part to prosecution will do? Makes me wonder. Seems like taking on that issue might be more of a judgemental burden/karma.
Like, if we have one or one billion nuclear bombs.
Isn’t one life sentence enough? Just thinking about all the implications. I’m open to discussion.
First off, that is not a straw man statement. Secondly, that is the characteristic of hate crimes legislation by definition. If they did not make distinctions between classes and types of people they would be, you know, regular crimes, which we, of course, already have. That IS the point.
As long as that razor cut is not lethal.
Hi, Twain. It’s a conundrum, I think.
So you’re saying if a black commits a hate crime against a white then it’s not a hate crime? Please respond to the point I made. Yes it distinguishes between groups of people but it doesn’t favor one group over another.
HI, Demi. It is a problem – needs to be solved though.
I have a gay cousin and he and his partner have interesting and rather scary stories to tell. They were entertainers and years ago they were going to Arizona to do a show in their small VW and as soon as they crossed into Arizona they encountered this pickup. They guys in the pickup were yelling “get out of town, you faggots.” My cousin still laughs about it and wonders if it was the small VW that gave them away – immediately after arriving in Arizona.
How did you get that from his comment? Show me.
Thank you, Ruth.
This is a very interesting article, but I must say that it is written in such a way as to be very hard to understand.
I had to read the following sentence:
about 5 or 6 times before I got what you were trying to say.
Another example:
just made my head spin.
It’s too bad, because once I finally got what you were trying to say, your points are spot on. I only mention this because others may not have the patience required to decipher this and that really limits your audience.
I did respond to the point you made. A “hate crime” is whatever the particular law defines it to be; you seem to carry your own portable definition and demand that things be discussed in those terms. That is neither consistent with the nature of the law nor my desired use of my time.
on phone – back soon.
Congratulations, President Obama!
Mason has a diary at the top of the front page…
Please Consider My Personal Plea On Behalf Of All Of Us Who Live In Red States: Reject Opt Out
They had Faggot bumper stickers? I don’t get it? My son is gay. So what? There must be some Tell that other people read.
Cause, I’m not seeing it. Course, I just see him as my gorgeous baby boy, at 22. How do people know? My son drives a skateboard, or takes the bus. He’s acutally bi,. Which we had a little discussion about last weekend. I like discussions. btw.
Thank you, Luring. I thought we were acutally getting into a Real Discussion. We’re adults. here and see the bottom link to that. Wheoever is the mod, thank you for that.
I’m pointing out that he did not refute my comment #13. He said in his original comment that hate crime laws favor particular groups and I refuted that in #13 by pointing out that hate crimes can work both ways. Blacks are also prohibited from committing hate crimes against whites, so neither group is favored.
Yes, hate crimes, as with a lot of other stuff can work both ways.
I have to admit I didn’t read this particular bill, but you seem to have read it and you’re saying it explicitly states that crimes against certain groups, such as blacks, are hate crimes and crimes against certain other groups, such as whites, are not.
I doubt it says that. Do you have a link to the bill?
Refute? That’s not been my experiencer here. People Bark and usually don’t respond, unless there is Pie involved. *g*
Pie? I don’t get it.
I don’t want to make anyone mad over this, we agree on about 90% of stuff on this blog. Anyway, Colorado is leading Texas– woo hoooooooo!!!!!
Amidst all this back and forth about whether hate crime laws are philosophically wrong, I’d like to point out something else.
Okay, so when Republicans introduce abortion amendments, can we call that social engineering?
If you pay any attention to what Dan Burton says you will lose your mind. :)
Here’s a link to go with my comment about social engineering. Mr. Dan Burton seems to be social engineer extraordinaire.
The types of crimes that such legislation refers to are all specific intent crimes. There always will be, by definition, some characteristic that caused that actor to commit that crime against that person or group. If there is no distinction as you are arguing, then it is a regular crime that applies to any victim. By its very nature, a hate crime requires a specialized class of “victims”; it cannot be non-discriminatory as you suggest or it would have no value whatsoever to the purpose intended, which is to give either extra protection to certain groups of people and/or extra penalties against those who commit crimes against them. Your statement that everybody is protected equally is nonsense; that is antithetical to the very concept of hate crime legislation.
Touchdown Buffaloes!!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!11
I am, however, as a former CU type, with you on that sentiment!
bmaz -
I’ve seen you making these points before, and they are persuasive. The pretext for these sorts of laws is that this sort of violence is of a special variety in that it terrorizes communities of people. Would you have another remedy for this type of horror, or would you argue that such concerns are specious?
I’m sorry if the question sounds rhetorical – it really isn’t.
(BTW – I’ve sadly abandoned Phoenix for Portland. My adopted hometown of the last 33 years has some serious problems I can’t deal with anymore…)
You’re begging the question here when you say “…it would have no value whatsoever to the purpose intended, which is to give either extra protection to certain groups of people…”. You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove.
Back to my example about blacks and whites: which group are you saying is favored? You didn’t answer my question: if a white commits a hate crime against a black, for example if he says “Die, whitey” and kills him, are you saying the hate crime law wouldn’t apply? If the law does apply to that example then which group is favored?
Please respond to this example.
Are you an alumnus of Colorado? Cool!
Pie? As in Pie Fights. Nevermind. Watch your football.
Oh, yeah, and enjoy! Really.
I have a hard time responding to that, as there is no reference made to what particular hate crime provision you are referring to; there are many different types and varieties both as to who they protect and how they do it (for instance, some create separate crimes, some seek to alter sentencing ranges for existing crimes). But as a general characteristic, they all by definition seek to protect some identifiable group or class of people. Under your example, many iterations of hate crime legislation would indeed punish extra a white man who shouted “Ni—-” while shooting a black man, but not one who shouted “whitey”. And to some extent, that is part of, or one of, my point(s). It should not make any difference whether it is a white man or black man doing the shooting, no which color the victim is; what matters is the act against another person. Both protagonists in this situation are “created equal” and should be treated equally under the law. Additionally, if the distinction is merely what word is uttered, that would seem to impinge on freedom of speech considerations. Now, to be fair, to date, most of my objections have been given short shrift by the Supreme Court, although they have very much danced on the head of a pin in doing so.
As to CU, not an alumni, but went there for a year and a half of graduate school. Loved Boulder.
Well then I would say that’s a poorly written hate crimes law. It seems to me your beef is against the particular way hate crimes laws are written, not against hate crimes laws in general. Certainly they should not single out any particular groups.
Lisa Derrick is upstairs!
Rocket Into the Moon? This was Wrong on So Many Levels
for the most part, all violent crimes ( at least those that are to some extent premeditated) (which would exclude only voluntary and involuntary manslaughter) are hate crimes. I take serious exception to labeling differing types of hate as more culpable than others.
For example, does a man who kills his wife get off lighter than a man who kills a person of another skin type? If so – why? Did he hate less, or was it that he hated in a more ’socially acceptable’ manner?
There is no socially acceptable manner of murder. There are no degrees. The laws which are required to appropriately punish are already in place.
I also, btw, take great exception to the concept that violence perpetrated upon a police officer may constitutionally be punished more severely than the violence committed upon an innocent wife, or any other citizen.
The pretext for these sorts of laws is that this sort of violence is of a special variety in that it terrorizes communities of people.
And what communities would you include? There are many documented cases of serial killing, back to Jack the Ripper, where the apparent motivation for killing was nothing more than that the women were prostitutes. Are you prepared to make prostitutes a protected class? (I wouldn’t automatically argue against that, but I think it’s an interesting question).
Ted Bundy was a serial killer who preyed, I believe, upon co-eds. Do we make co-eds a protected class?
Trying to rank classes of hate is dangerous, imprecise, and imo constitutes the legislation of morality. Now normally when we speak of ‘legislating morality’ – we’re taking the “high ground” – that government should stay out of my/your/our heads, because what we’re doing is benign. But if you really believe that legislating morality is wrong, you’re gonna have to bite the bullet on this one.
that wasn’t supposed to be one long paragraph – my computer hates me, and now it won’t let me edit it back to the original form.
Thanks for weighing in. I’m actually still a bit agnostic on this question (not legislation of morality – which I don’t think really applies – but on the specific question being discussed here.)
Not all cultures are equal in a society – there is the “dominant” culture that takes all sorts of liberties with the minority cultures, economic to sociological. This is why the “n word” is particularly offensive when uttered by whites, but sort of a sly mockery/rebuke when used by blacks.
Does the public sphere have a place in mitigating this imbalance? If one says no, then affirmative action invites the very criticism that the right-wingers often level.
On an individual level – if there is a barfight, and it is discovered that one of the individuals has martial training, then the law is much harsher towards that individual. In that sense, I see a dominant culture as having an unfair advantage in instigating violence between cultures.
Again, I am not sure what is the “right” answer here – although I suspect that we would come to different conclusions if we were to base our analysis on a pure philosophical ideal vs. the ugly pragmatics of a grey world.
My sense of things is that things really are unequal, and some mitigation is in order.
Again, thanks!
It showed up fine here!
Again, that is the root point of hate crime law; i.e. to provide certain differentiated treatment or protection for selected and identified groups or classes. You are advocating that hate crime law be written to where it does not do the very thing it is designed to do in the first place. I agree with you as far as equal treatment under the law and that is exactly my aversion to hate crime legislation.
Precisely! And, of course, very much agreed about cops.
It also occurs to me that the highest percentages of murder are black-on-black, most often involving drugs and/or gang wars.
Find me a group that *doesn’t* merit protection from hate-crime laws – and then I’ll ask you why.
No. Hate crime laws are designed to discourage hate crimes by any group against any other group. They should not favor any particular group, and if they do that means they were poorly written.
So that’s the problem– you don’t understand the purpose of hate crimes laws.
…you don’t understand the purpose of hate crimes laws.
heh.
5, 4, 3 ,2…
And why shouldn’t it? People are different. A black man is a target for murder and violence by virtue of the fact that he is black. This is a special problem he faces that a white man does not face. Likewise, a woman faces issues- hello, pregnancy and abortion- that a man does not face. The law should only treat “equally”- used with the most obvious quotation marks- where that equality is, in fact, just.
Hate crime legislation is for justice. It is to say, “You who would harm another for the color of his skin or the sex of his love, we are coming for you.” It is to say, ” We will not tolerate this in our society.”
I reject the fetish of equality. I reject the idol that we call “justice” when it does not, in fact, serve justice.I do not think the law should treat everyone the same simply because that is a “good thing”, with no critical self-examination. To think about it for one moment is to see it as silly. To seriously examined it is to see it as worse than silly; it is monstrous.
We must protect those who are targeted. There is no excuse not to do so. Equality in all areas where that is justified by reason- money, education, jobs, etc. But I will fight for inequality- for legislation against hate crimes, for reproductive rights- when that inequality will serve the cause of justice.
I find AngelsAwake very persuasive…
Well said.
I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate….
RieszFischer – You are free to disagree, and I fully accept people doing so. Heck, so far, to the limited extent they have head on confronted the issue (which is not as much as they should have, quite frankly) the Supreme Court disagrees with me. But I fully understand what hate crimes are and how they are constructed; I participated in a working group back in the 80s evaluating and commenting on proposed legislation and have been defending people charged with them off and on ever since the crap got passed over my group’s objections.
I think you may be confused about which one of us does not really understand the root nature of hate crime legislation.
Waving around your credentials does not constitute an argument.
I’ve asked you a simple question repeatedly and you have been unable to answer how hate crimes laws favor one group over another.
Waving around ignorance doesn’t accomplish much either.
Your question cannot be answered on the terms you demand because you insist on making a fundamental assumption on the defining characteristic of hate crime law that is not just blatantly false, but the diametric opposite of the truth as to the root construct and intent of hate crime law.
It is to say, “You who would harm another for the color of his skin or the sex of his love, we are coming for you.” It is to say, ” We will not tolerate this in our society.”
Are you trying to argue that, at present, we *do* tolerate this type of behavior? As a person who spends every day in criminal courts, I can assure you that this is not true.
Again, almost all violent crime is hate crime. And the parameters you propose, specifically color of skin and a presumed weakness of one sex, would result in well over 50% of violent crime in this country being, rather absurdly, being ’singled out’ (yes, it’s an oxymoron – that’s the point) for specialized punishment, based upon *someone’s* idea of which hate-thought is more reprehensible.
Who, would you propose, to be an acceptable arbiter of unacceptable thought?
That’s from here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm
Where does it favor one group over another?
In the definition. It is saying that someone is entitled to separate and distinct treatment under the law because they are a member of a “race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation”. That is the whole purpose of the freaking enterprise; if it were not, there would be no purpose for distinguishing from the standard criminal conduct of assault, murder, battery, rape, etc. Jeebus, I really do not know how to put it any more clear than that. Try reading what Jayt said above, he is getting at the same point. Listen, like I said before, disagreeing is fine, but trying to argue that hate crimes do not set up separate treatment based upon defining characteristics among people is insane. That is their whole purpose.
Well who isn’t a member of a “race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation”? We’re all a member of all of those groups, except “disability”. The point is it doesn’t favor any one race over another. Anyone who assaults someone because of their race is guilty of a hate crime. The attacker could be black or white, it makes no difference.
OMG, Do you really not understand this? Dude, this is simple.
Well who isn’t a member of a “race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation”? We’re all a member of all of those groups, except “disability”.
Yup.
And you just sank your own battleship wrt to trying to fashion some kind of specialized punishment when, as you point out, almost no one is immune.
You cannot tell me we do not accept this sort of thing. As a society, we have learned to fake our “outrage and anguish” over hate crimes… but privately, really? We barely give a damn. In the South, going after “those n*****s” is a freaking cultural pastime, and in the rest of the country it still exists, if somewhat toned down. Violence against women, meanwhile, is endemic everywhere, not just in the South.
In fact, I’d argue that your statement- that 50% of violent crime is directed specifically against people of a different skin color, or against women- is a sign that I’m right. We covertly accept this sort of behavior. Societies do not do the things they have decided not to do. Racism against whites is not very common in this nation because we don’t tolerate that shit. We shouldn’t tolerate the other racist and sexist shit either, but we do because it’s part of our cultural background.
Thusly, more than half of all crimes, by your own admission, are race or sex motivated.
And it is not just *someone’s* idea of which is the more reprehensible hate-thought. All hate-thought is reprehensible. Period.
Now, if you are trying to say that all violent crime is motivated by hate, well, that’s wrong. Yes, a lot of it is the result of intense emotional hatred, but a lot of violent crime is also financially motivated, some of it’s based on various mental illnesses, etc.- but I am limiting my discussion to racist and sexist hatred, which is what the “hate crimes” covers. One doesn’t have to hate someone to kill them. There’s lots of reasons to kill other people.
That is the hate-thought I’m referring to, though I understand you may be referring to all violent crimes as hate crimes for some reason.
MOD NOTE: That word is one of the few never permitted. ***edited***
Yes, loudmouthed blowhards said stupid things of the House floor: what else is new?
About the four actual issues:
(1) raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or other protected activities;
(2) creates unequal treatment of victims by treating crimes against protected groups more seriously than non-protected groups;
(3) encroaches on jurisdiction traditionally reserved to the States;
(4) violates the 14th Amendment
All are reasonable enough questions to deserve reasonable answers.
How would you respond to #1, which could jail an Iman who did nothing but read straight from the Koran?
I think 2 and 4 should be consolidated: doesn’t this violate the equal protection clause?
#3 doesn’t impress me much: I do see this issue as one where Sate law should be subordinate to Federal law.
I don’t understand the need for hate crime laws. A crime is a crime. We should not be legislating what people think. Ever.
My apologies, didn’t know that.
I think if a religious leader preaches that his followers should go out and persecute others, than he should have to go to jail for it. Seems like justice to me. Would snip a lot of crazy in the bud.
You cannot tell me we do not accept this sort of thing.
Actually, yes I can – and I did. This is where I live. Now if you want to argue the percentage of premeditated vs. spontaneous – that might be an interesting discussion. I would argue that the spontaneous is much more prevalent.
In fact, I’d argue that your statement- that 50% of violent crime is directed specifically against people of a different skin color, or against women- is a sign that I’m right.
To start with, women make up more than 50% of the population, and around here anyway, courts do not fool around with guys beating on women. And if you want to admit that more than 50% of murders fall within some parameter of having occurred against particular groups, then they are not at all special – they are the norm. We have plenty of law to deal with that – including, goddammit, the death penalty. Is that what you want? Are you a death penalty freak? If so, please don’t bother responding, because I have no wish to speak to you further.
Now, if you are trying to say that all violent crime is motivated by hate, well, that’s wrong.
I did not say that. Re-read my comment. The instances you provide, financial (please stop watching so much TV)) or mental illness (try taking that to a jury) are very much the exception, not the rule.
One doesn’t have to hate someone to kill them.
I was tempted to say that that is absurd, but there are in fact sociopaths roaming the earth. So I assume from your argument that we treat them less harshly by reason of their lack of hate?
And again, I’ll state that by far the highest murder rate in the country is black-on-black males. It is the leading cause of death of young black males. Your argument infers that a white-on-white male murder should not be subject to hate-crime legislation.
Do you propose that hate-crime legislation also cover black-on-black killings?
Your argument fails because it does not identify a single recognizable brand or type of murder that the judicial system is not already very well equipped to handle.
I am most certainly not minimizing murder, or its effect on the loved ones or family of the victim. But you want extra-special-enhanced penalties based upon the mind-set of the killer?
Really?
And again, who gets to determine the extra-special-bad thoughts of the killer? A murder is a murder, and a killer is a killer. They don’t walk because, e.g., a white guy killed another white guy.
And in your scenario, that would be just about the only wqay a person could avoid a hate-crime prosecution.
I’m really not trying to be shitty – I applaud your concern. My points are that there is already a system in place to handle this type of thing, and that the institution of thought-crime prosecution could carry more damaging implications that you could possibly imagine.
I… highly doubt you’re not trying to be shitty. The accusation of watching too much TV, accusing me of being a death penalty freak… really, you should be ashamed of yourself. Indeed, if anything, the point you’ve made is that you find it difficult to argue without insulting the other person.
I think the biggest issue with your argument is that it assumes the worst. I am not asking that the law throw away common sense. You are assuming a weird, worst-case scenario where, automatically, any crime, anywhere, against a black man is a hate crime. Obviously that’s silly.
And the law should be designed to reflect that- a black-on-black killing is, nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand, not going to be a hate crime. It’s difficult- though not impossible- to commit hate crimes against your own group. Of course, it could still be a hate-crime motivation- religious, for example. Men of the same skin color- of the same family, even- have killed each other over religious issues before.
Also, white people can kill black people or women without running into a hate crime scenario. White people can kill black people for money, we call it an armed robbery gone bad.
Really, what you’ve done is try to assume from my argument that all crimes against people of color or women will be hate crimes. That’s simply silly. I think a judge and a jury should examine the evidence and see if it was hate-motivated. If it was, then yes, harsher punishment should be called for. This crime is inherently worse than a crime committed in the name of money or even passion. Racial hatred is a pernicious, ever-present element of American society. Every effort should be made to root it out.
Also, statistically, I should point out that white men who kill other white men have a much higher chance of walking, so yes, sometimes a white guy kills another white guy and gets off scot free. In many ways, the prison system is set up so that society can remove its “undesirables”. African-Americans, Mexicans, anyone the nation doesn’t like can be safely shipped to prison on commission of any crime, whereas whites can usually escape such punishments. Whites have a much higher chance of receiving a lesser sentence for the same crime, as compared to an African-American.
Your worries over thought-police are, I believe, unfounded. It will only crop up in the context of violent crimes- those targeted are, already, under investigation for the commission of a violent act. It will not be random privacy violations of ordinary citizens. To even trigger the law, you must commit or be charged with a violent act. This is the first defense.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly approve of getting rid of racists. It is not a valid set of political discourse. It is not something we should approve of. It is not something that, frankly, deserves protection, and it only has its protections because we have a culture in this country that promotes, adores, and believes in racism.
And finally, yes, I do think we should treat sociopaths less harshly because of a lack of hate. A sociopath kills because they are so mentally messed up that they can’t help themselves. To me, that’s much less heinous than someone who, willingly, and with free will, chooses to commit a hate crime. The involuntary is always less than the voluntary.
Sorry, I should probably have edited more heavily. You have a point, and when my thoughts are convoluted, I need to simplify and elaborate more.
As to the basic question of whether or not hate crime legislation is desirable, I have thought yes because our society is built by our laws.
-
The discrimination against minorities also affects our prison population, and works against justice, and I would support that we direct legislation to correct that injustice as well. –
We are not so blind to the relation between our government and ourselves as Rep. Virginia Foxx – who said on the floor of the House last week that Jesus told us to show charity as individuals, not as a government. This was her justification of legislation that is discriminatory and provides entitlement of corporations and the wealthy. –
We provide public education, that is a value. Legislation set it up. –
Discrimination in the military should provoke legislation to correct it, and asking to repeal the ‘Don’tAskDon’tTell’ law is a blow against discrimination. –
To evereyone, thanks for all your comments. Please feel free to disagree with what I’ve said. -
Pardon the dashes, I was having trouble with editing here.
I’m transgendered. Transsexual, actually. I have a new birth certificate to reflect the gender change. And am statistically thirteen time more likely than you to be murdered because — just because — I’m transgendered.
And that’s just the statistics we do have, as the effort at gathering the statistics on crimes directed at transgendered primarily because they’re transgendered is right now patchwork at best. So maybe it’s not 13 times, but 8 times more likely. Or 25 times more likely. Thirteen Times is splitting the difference. But it certainly ain’t ‘equal’ to the rate of the general society. In fact, it’s severely elevated.
There is a disgust factor that has to be recognised in law enforcement’s dealing with assault/murder of LGBT persons. Google -Brandon Teena- to find a particularly egregious example of a sheriff’s criminal inaction in the case of the rape and subsequent murder of female-to-male transgender Brandon. Or the caught-on-camera beating of Duanna Johnson by Memphis police while she was in custody. And the reluctance to investigate her execution-style murder 6 months later, after she filed an excessive-force and civil-rights-violation suit against the Memphis Police Department.
Not all police are disgusted/revolted — many truly live up to the creed To Protect and Serve. But there is in some places a bias against LGBT individuals, and the LGBT community as a group.
There’s a cost factor that can burden Law Enforcement agencies — already stretched thin by the failing economy — when a sensational murder of an LGBT person attracts media scrutiny. Doesn’t the Hate Crimes act make funds available for the investigation and prosecution of crimes which meet the criteria? And won’t it help alleviate the financial impact on all other investigations and prosecutions in the affected jurisdiction?
It used to be that defense attorneys got rapists acquitted by saying the woman raped had worn too-revealing clothes, had acted in a suggestive manner that implied (non-revocable) consent, that the rapist just couldn’t control himself. We as a society don’t condone that way of thinking any more.
But I’m sure there are those who call my transitioning a ‘choice’, and the actions of someone who, upon discovering my ’secret’, proceeds to beat me senseless (or to death) for no other reason than I freaked them out simply by being me — is ‘understandable.’
Martin Luther King said, “Laws can’t change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” I’ve heard too many stories of anonymous violence being directed at LGBT individuals. Before I transitioned, I tried very hard to be male, hence I know what a percentage of guys think about gays, lesbians and ‘tranny freaks’. It was ugly. And worse yet, no one stood up to those who talked joyously about going out on Saturday night to beat up ‘homos’. They weren’t attacking individuals, the ‘homos’ they beat up were stand ins for all gays, everywhere. That they hated is their business, that they acted, and then BRAGGED about it, is ours.
The Hate Crimes Act is about balancing moral books, nothing more.
A wonderful sentiment! I approve!
Thanks. I agree, sometimes the society has tolerated injustice, even atrocities, and needs correction which legislation can effect. I fear about this Supreme Court, it has been so inclined to ignore law and precedent, and enact its own social agenda. I’m thinking we need to put in more framework in the legislative branch to make tolerance part of our society, and protect us all from criminality from the right.
I agree that reining in extremist preachers might “snip a lot of crazy in the bud,” but do you really think Congress should be able to pass laws that violate the 1st Amendment?