The Hate Crime Debate

[Nbadan]

What's to debate? Evanglical nutcase's right to beat up and kill gays?


Boehner: Protecting People Against Hate Crimes ‘Takes Us Down A Path That Is Very Scary’


Today, the House is voting on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable federal officials to work with state and local officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.” Watch it at link~

The right-wing is wrong. This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”

Transcript:

BOEHNER: It’s yours, yes.

REPORTER: Hate crimes legislation?

BOEHNER: Hate crimes? Yes.

REPORTER: How do you feel about it? What’s going to happen?

BOEHNER: I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t understand it. We’re going to put into place a federal law that says, not only will we punish you for the crime that you actually commit — the physical crime that you commit — but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things about this person before you committed a crime.

I just — I just really don’t understand it. I’ve been opposed to this for a long time and I remain opposed to it.

I mean, it’s a crime on what people were thinking when they were committing an act of violence. How do you walk into court and make a case for a crime because someone was thinking something bad. I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/03/boehner-hate)

The House today saw otherwise..

House passes bill to add attacks on gays to hate crime law; White House threatens veto


WASHINGTON — Just hours after the White House issued a veto threat Thursday, the House voted to add gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.

The House legislation, passed 237-180, also makes it easier for federal law enforcement to take part in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is also moving through the Senate, setting the stage for another veto showdown with President Bush.

"This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Linky (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070503/hate-crimes)

[Phenomanul]

Yeah.... bad implications to this bill (even though it's core premise is in the right place).... my father (an evangelical pastor) recieved a memo saying he could no longer denounce homosexuality from the pulpit.

This was to be expected during my lifetime..... it's no surprise at this point.

[clambake]

A memo from who? Did it take a memo to persuade your father not to denounce gays in public?

[leemajors]

does he make a habit of condemning homosexuality from the pulpit?

[clambake]

Could the person that sent the memo be gay?

[Spurminator]

What's to debate? Evanglical nutcase's right to beat up and kill gays?

And it's for this reason that the more legitimate arguments in favor of hate crime legislation are rarely heard.

[Phenomanul]

does he make a habit of condemning homosexuality from the pulpit?


Only if he happens to be reading directly from Romans Chapter 1... or when he happens to list the types of sins which have become the debauchery of our generation.... as in noting that the propensity for these deviant behaviors has increased strikingly over the past few years....

He would never call anyone out on it... that's never the purpose. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Are you familiar with that little gem? Nevertheless, it is what it is... and the Bible declares homosexuality to be an abomination before GOD.

[Phenomanul]

A memo from who? Did it take a memo to persuade your father not to denounce gays in public?

The same memo that allows you to disrespect him on a public forum? I guess you don't wish to relinquish that right?

It goes both ways... except I don't recall a case where my father attacked anybody for their lifestyle. Everyone will be held accountable for our actions to a higher authority (ahemmm GOD)... and this will happen regardless of whether we believe said authority exists.

[clambake]

"a memo from who" was a valid question, that you didn't answer.

You brought it up.

The fact that you and he discussed the memo means there was some discomfort in having received it.

Religious, sexual deviants are plenty. Just wondering how the chart of acceptability works in your house.

Don't know how I disrespected him, unless he is you.

[Phenomanul]

"a memo from who" was a valid question, that you didn't answer.

You brought it up.

The fact that you and he discussed the memo means there was some discomfort in having received it.

Religious, sexual deviants are plenty. Just wondering how the chart of acceptability works in your house.

Don't know how I disrespected him, unless he is you.


From the Baptist Association Director.... it was a memo to all pastors in the area. It wasn't a memo to single him out - it was with reference to this particular bill.

[clambake]

I didn't suspect he'd been singled out, but you never know the true character of those that lurk among the robed.

[01Snake]

Did he get the other memo? The one about putting covers on all the TPS reports.

[Extra Stout]

The problem is that it is possible to prosecute speech as a "verbal assault." If a homosexual decided he felt intimidated by a Christian preacher denouncing homosexuality, said preacher could be in legal jeopardy under federal law.

[Phenomanul]

The problem is that it is possible to prosecute speech as a "verbal assault." If a homosexual decided he felt intimidated by a Christian preacher denouncing homosexuality, said preacher could be in legal jeopardy under federal law.


Is this something you agree with?

I happen to agree with Dr. James Dobson on this one... it takes us down a 'scary path'.

[Phenomanul]

I didn't suspect he'd been singled out, but you never know the true character of those that lurk among the robed.

Pardon the jump to conclusion... you didn't exactly phrase your comment too clearly... and I didn't exactly give all the details from the onset.

[clambake]

It's alright to jump. Religion is a leap. So is atheism.

[Phenomanul]

See as much as I disagree with say....boutons_'s core beliefs... he is entitled to believe whatever he wishes, no one should deny him that right. If however the implications of this bill went as far as creating a vast 'gray area' of criminal assertions and allegations..... Well... that too would mean that I would be able to accuse boutons_ or even someone like Bill Maher of hate speech towards Christians. That would be absurd.

This law would bring about the "Salem witch hunt" all over again....

[FromWayDowntown]

The problem is that it is possible to prosecute speech as a "verbal assault." If a homosexual decided he felt intimidated by a Christian preacher denouncing homosexuality, said preacher could be in legal jeopardy under federal law.

I doubt that. Hate crime laws generally require some sort of actus reus that is already defined to be criminal (assault, for instance). Assailing someone's sexuality is not a crime. Any district attorney who would actually prosecute a "verbal assault" as a crime is out of his or her mind.

The point of hate crime legislation is to say, I think, that we've made a societal judgment to commit a crime against another simply because of some characteristic displayed by that person -- color, religion, sexual orientation. Frankly, I think that hate crime laws are more political footballs than they are effective prosecution tools. A person who chooses his victim based on some characteristic like that can be prosecuted for having intentionally committed the crime (as opposed to having evidenced some lesser culpable mental state (knowingly, recklessly, negligently)). In some ways, the better societal judgment might just be to increase the penalties on all who are convicted of committing intentional crimes.

Still, I think that a lot of disgust with law stems from a lack of understanding of what the law really is and Chicken Little characterizations of the law by those who are charged with describing it to the public. First Amendment religion clause law is a prime example of that phenomenon to me. The notion that someone should be prohibited from reading the Bible in a public school or from saying a private prayer is anathema to Supreme Court authority on the issue. Yet lawyers for school districts and poorly informed administrators enforce those sorts of unconstitutional limitations with some regularity.

There may be other reasons that Phenomanual's father was told not to denounce homosexuality, but to suggest that such speech is somehow forbidden by a hate crime law would seem to misunderstand what the law is meant to do.

[Phenomanul]

I doubt that. Hate crime laws generally require some sort of actus reus that is already defined to be criminal (assault, for instance). Assailing someone's sexuality is not a crime. Any district attorney who would actually prosecute a "verbal assault" as a crime is out of his or her mind.

The point of hate crime legislation is to say, I think, that we've made a societal judgment to commit a crime against another simply because of some characteristic displayed by that person -- color, religion, sexual orientation. Frankly, I think that hate crime laws are more political footballs than they are effective prosecution tools. A person who chooses his victim based on some characteristic like that can be prosecuted for having intentionally committed the crime (as opposed to having evidenced some lesser culpable mental state (knowingly, recklessly, negligently)). In some ways, the better societal judgment might just be to increase the penalties on all who are convicted of committing intentional crimes.

Still, I think that a lot of disgust with law stems from a lack of understanding of what the law really is and Chicken Little characterizations of the law by those who are charged with describing it to the public. First Amendment religion clause law is a prime example of that phenomenon to me. The notion that someone should be prohibited from reading the Bible in a public school or from saying a private prayer is anathema to Supreme Court authority on the issue. Yet lawyers for school districts and poorly informed administrators enforce those sorts of unconstitutional limitations with some regularity.

There may be other reasons that Phenomanual's father was told not to denounce homosexuality, but to suggest that such speech is somehow forbidden by a hate crime law would seem to misunderstand what the law is meant to do.

I know that this is what the true intent of the law is... And like I mentioned in the first post the core principle is dead on.

It still takes us down an uncertain path... with an analogous Salem witch hunt or McCarthy trials as the extreme outcome.

[BradLohaus]

The reason you assault, kill, rape or rob someone is completely irrelevent. The action is the crime, not the thought that goes through the criminals head before and during the crime. That is by definition policing people's thoughts. The thought police are here and they are only going to want more power. I can't believe people can't see the incredibly steep and slippery slope that hate crime laws have put us on.

Discrimination is bad. Racism is bad. Committing crimes against people for those reasons is bad. This is not the way to stop it though. The price we pay in letting the thought police in the door outweighs the benefits. The guy from the article is right: you're making a thought an illegal act. Unless these laws are done away with then we will live in a future where it will be illegal to say, "I don't like my son's teacher because he's gay" or "I can't stand Mormons". Not wrong, not socially unacceptable, but crimes that are punished. Don't think it can't happen.

[FromWayDowntown]

I know that this is what the true intent of the law is... And like I mentioned in the first post the core principle is dead on.

It still takes us down an uncertain path... with an analogous Salem witch hunt or McCarthy trials as the extreme outcome.

But we already do that. A person's culpability for a crime is already directly tied to what he or she was thinking (or not thinking) before the crime was committed. It is, at least, to the extent the prosecutor can prove that culpable mental state.

In homicide cases, there are varying degrees of crime based entirely on the actor's culpable mental state. In most jurisdictions, if the actor can be shown to have killed someone intentionally, he's charged with murder. If he can only to be show to have acted recklessly, he's charged with manslaughter. And if it can only be established that he acted without ordinary care -- that is, that he acted negligently -- he's charged with criminally negligent homicide. The crime in each situation is precisely the same: killing someone. The difference in punishment for having committed that crime, however, depends on what the actor thought before committing the crime.

Hate crime laws, to me, are a variation on that theme. What they generally offer, I think, is an opportunity to enhance punishments based on the substance of the individual's thought. It's not as if the criminal's thoughts are only considered in hate crime situations -- it's that the criminal's thoughts become particularly repugnant to society when those thoughts become the sole basis for criminal action against the target. Like I said in my earlier post, I think there may be a better societal judgment in concluding that any intentional crime -- and a hate crime, by definition, would be an intentional crime -- should be punished more severely. I can also see the public policy arguments, though, for recognizing hate crimes.

[Phenomanul]

But we already do that. A person's culpability for a crime is already directly tied to what he or she was thinking (or not thinking) before the crime was committed. It is, at least, to the extent the prosecutor can prove that culpable mental state.

In homicide cases, there are varying degrees of crime based entirely on the actor's culpable mental state. In most jurisdictions, if the actor can be shown to have killed someone intentionally, he's charged with murder. If he can only to be show to have acted recklessly, he's charged with manslaughter. And if it can only be established that he acted without ordinary care -- that is, that he acted negligently -- he's charged with criminally negligent homicide. The crime in each situation is precisely the same: killing someone. The difference in punishment for having committed that crime, however, depends on what the actor thought before committing the crime.

Hate crime laws, to me, are a variation on that theme. What they generally offer, I think, is an opportunity to enhance punishments based on the substance of the individual's thought. It's not as if the criminal's thoughts are only considered in hate crime situations -- it's that the criminal's thoughts become particularly repugnant to society when those thoughts become the sole basis for criminal action against the target. Like I said in my earlier post, I think there may be a better societal judgment in concluding that any intentional crime -- and a hate crime, by definition, would be an intentional crime -- should be punished more severely. I can also see the public policy arguments, though, for recognizing hate crimes.

Well said. :tu

And yet the fear that wacky judges will push this past its meaning will always be there.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well said. :tu

And yet the fear that wacky judges will push this past its meaning will always be there.

But wacky judges can't do that in isolation. That's why the system has so many checks in it.

A criminal prosecuted for a hate crime has the right to a jury trial, which generally takes the judge out of the picture in terms of deciding whether the defendant is culpable or not. If the judge somehow interjects himself into that issue, there are, in most states (and certainly in the federal system) one level of guaranteed review and another level of discretionary review on appeal. Sustaining a verdict like that takes the acquiesence of a majority of judges on a panel of 3 (in most instances) at the intermediate level and, if discretionary review is granted, significantly more at the highest level. That sort of appellate process ensures that the law won't just be the determination of one "wacky judge," but the conclusion of several judges. It severely curtails the likelihood of odd decisions that tend to become outliers on the legal landscape.

And the wackier the decisions of the lower courts, the more likely it is that discretionary review will be granted at the highest levels.

[Yonivore]

But we already do that. A person's culpability for a crime is already directly tied to what he or she was thinking (or not thinking) before the crime was committed. It is, at least, to the extent the prosecutor can prove that culpable mental state.

In homicide cases, there are varying degrees of crime based entirely on the actor's culpable mental state. In most jurisdictions, if the actor can be shown to have killed someone intentionally, he's charged with murder. If he can only to be show to have acted recklessly, he's charged with manslaughter. And if it can only be established that he acted without ordinary care -- that is, that he acted negligently -- he's charged with criminally negligent homicide. The crime in each situation is precisely the same: killing someone. The difference in punishment for having committed that crime, however, depends on what the actor thought before committing the crime.
I disagree.

What you described is intent not mental state.

You can intentionally kill someone for a variety of reasons (race, money, revenge, jealousy, just to watch 'em die, etc...) and it's all the same crime, murder. Whereas acting recklessly or without regard are behaviors, not mental states.


Hate crime laws, to me, are a variation on that theme. What they generally offer, I think, is an opportunity to enhance punishments based on the substance of the individual's thought.
Welcome to "1984" or "Minority Report," whichever you prefer.


It's not as if the criminal's thoughts are only considered in hate crime situations -- it's that the criminal's thoughts become particularly repugnant to society when those thoughts become the sole basis for criminal action against the target.
No, under your premise, their thoughts are only considered in hate crime.


Like I said in my earlier post, I think there may be a better societal judgment in concluding that any intentional crime -- and a hate crime, by definition, would be an intentional crime -- should be punished more severely. I can also see the public policy arguments, though, for recognizing hate crimes.
And I still think "hate crimes" are a a stupid idea.

[leemajors]

Only if he happens to be reading directly from Romans Chapter 1... or when he happens to list the types of sins which have become the debauchery of our generation.... as in noting that the propensity for these deviant behaviors has increased strikingly over the past few years....

He would never call anyone out on it... that's never the purpose. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Are you familiar with that little gem? Nevertheless, it is what it is... and the Bible declares homosexuality to be an abomination before GOD.

i'm not trying to draw you into anything, but if you list a roll call of sins and "note" a propensity for certain sexual behaviors you may as well quit beating around the bush and condemn them. even though homosexuals are people, like anyone else, capable of being good despite a perceived abomination before god.

[Mr. Peabody]

I disagree.

What you described is intent not mental state.

You can intentionally kill someone for a variety of reasons (race, money, revenge, jealousy, just to watch 'em die, etc...) and it's all the same crime, murder. Whereas acting recklessly or without regard are behaviors, not mental states.



First, I don't know how you separate "intent" from mental state. The law treats the two as the same.

Second, even if that's your argument, it is mistaken. The law does take your version of mental state into consideration. To use your example, if the reason I kill you is because you are about kill me, it is not necessarily murder. Same act (causing death), same intent (to cause death), but one is a crime and the other is not.

Or, if I kill you because I just witnessed you killing my son, the crime may qualify as a crime of sudden passion and the offense may be reduced a level. Same act, same intent, but one is a lesser crime because of "mental state."

[Phenomanul]

i'm not trying to draw you into anything, but if you list a roll call of sins and "note" a propensity for certain sexual behaviors you may as well quit beating around the bush and condemn them. even though homosexuals are people, like anyone else, capable of being good despite a perceived abomination before god.


One can condemn a sin without condemning the sinner. It's not a hard concept to understand... really.

[sabar]

One can condemn a sin without condemning the sinner. It's not a hard concept to understand... really.Yep, but 99% of the population will do the latter and that is why society has taken the option of making hate crimes punishable.

[Extra Stout]

First, I don't know how you separate "intent" from mental state. The law treats the two as the same.

Second, even if that's your argument, it is mistaken. The law does take your version of mental state into consideration. To use your example, if the reason I kill you is because you are about kill me, it is not necessarily murder. Same act (causing death), same intent (to cause death), but one is a crime and the other is not.

Or, if I kill you because I just witnessed you killing my son, the crime may qualify as a crime of sudden passion and the offense may be reduced a level. Same act, same intent, but one is a lesser crime because of "mental state."
Those are mitigating circumstances. Where I would object is in distinguishing a premeditated crime based upon group hate from a premeditated crime based upon other similarly indefensible frames of mind. First-degree murder and capital murder are what they are. Let the prosecuting attorney present evidence about racism or anti-gay bias during the punishment phase of the trial, and allow the jury to return a sentence at the higher end of the range.

The anecdote that comes to mind is when then-Gov. George W. Bush was criticized for not pushing for hate crimes legislation in light of the Jasper atrocity. The irony was that the perpetrators were executed anyway. What would have hate crimes legislation done to increase the severity of punishment? I think it's a political statement only.

[mookie2001]

I agree with yoni and phenemanuaual

bottom line is hate crimes threaten free speech

[Mr. Peabody]

Those are mitigating circumstances.

But those defenses are not solely dependent on the circumstances one finds himself in. The mental state of the accused is a large part of it. Do you actually have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger? Did you kill out of sudden passion arising out of direct provocation? Those are all questions regarding your mental state. It's possible that two people can be in what appears to be the exact same circumstances and yet, one will be allowed to claim self-defense and the other won't based entirely on what they were thinking at the time they acted.


Where I would object is in distinguishing a premeditated crime based upon group hate from a premeditated crime based upon other similarly indefensible frames of mind. First-degree murder and capital murder are what they are. Let the prosecuting attorney present evidence about racism or anti-gay bias during the punishment phase of the trial, and allow the jury to return a sentence at the higher end of the range.

I agree with you here. If someone attacks me because his girlfriend was looking at me in a club, how is that any less of a crime than if he attacks me because I am a Mexican? Either way, he's operating from hate.

[Nbadan]

Foes of Hate Crime Bill Prove It's Needed


...The proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday despite the accompanying White House veto threat, includes provisions that would make it possible for federal investigation and prosecution of any hate crime, as well as a more-publicized tenet that expands the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation, transgender identity, gender and disability. ...

...Most media and public attention is focused on the clause that offers greater protection for sexual minorities. But it shouldn’t even be news. ...

According to FBI reports, 14 percent of 2005 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation, which is just slightly less than the percent of attacks based on religion and greater than the percent of attacks based on ethnicity, two groups that are currently protected under the law. Those in the sexual minority deserve the same protection as other minorities because they are just as abused and just as worthy of it. But not only is this protection not afforded them, but arguments against the proposed revisions to hate crime laws are based on prejudices that should be a mere memory in the year 2007. ...

... Second, while every American citizen has a Constitutional right to protection, those in minority groups are in a unique situation. Simply being who they are inspires people to commit violence against them. Additionally, if we were all to have the equal protection Rep. Smith suggests, we would have to eliminate all hate crime laws covering race, religion and national origin. Doing away with hate crime laws altogether would be an injustice, and members of both parties would likely oppose it. So these groups are and will continue to rightfully be protected, but the still-unaccepted sexual minorities are not.

Perhaps the weakest argument against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act is the one put forth by the religious right – that this act would take away their right to free speech and hold them accountable for speaking out against homosexuality. ... What’s important is the fact that the proposed act would in no way take away their right to free speech, as it covers only physical acts against these groups. Perhaps the religious right should also consider that they, under current hate crime laws, are protected against hate-related attacks, and reflect on what it might be like if that were to be taken away from them.

Everybody understand now?

Simply put, the people who are currently protected are the ones enjoying "special" rights -- or, as I like to think of them: privileges.

But, hey, I'm willing to give up equal protection under the law if you are too.

Now, if you're against all hate-crime laws, then I'll give you credit for being consistent. If you're really being consistent.

I hope you realize that by railing against hate-crime laws, you're on quite a slippery slope. If you believe that there should be no protections in place for minorities against crimes committed on the sole basis of who we are, then be prepared to explain why we shouldn't eliminate all "special rights" laws, such as protection in housing and employment.

And don't give me any of that "thought crime" malarkey. If you really believe that there's no way to determine that a gay -- or black, or Muslim -- person was beaten or murdered on the basis of who they are, then how can there be any way to determine that the reason a person was fired, or evicted, for the same "thought crime"?

In which case, I expect everyone against hate-crime laws must want to see both the Fair Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. There's no way to justify support for either if you oppose the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act.

Heck, you may as well overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act. After all, don't all those wheelchair ramps and court sign-language interpreters represent "special" rights?

[Gerryatrics]

I think we're missing something by focusing on hate crimes. When is the government going to do more to stop love crimes? How about like crimes? Or more-or-less neutral crimes? Pretty sure most crimes are, in fact, crimes. If you can prove that a crime was based solely on discrimination against something or other, fine, but what I and I'm sure other people are worried about are hate crime laws being used to try to limit people's free speech.

[xrayzebra]

Is this something you agree with?

I happen to agree with Dr. James Dobson on this one... it takes us down a 'scary path'.


I agree with Dr. Dobson. It is a very scary path. You
can be prosecuted for what you think and say.

Regardless of what people would like you to believe
homosexuality is a sexual practice, not a lifestyle as some
want to profess.

Once more we see politicians getting involved where
they have no business. It has always been a mystery
to me how politicians, when they get elected, think
they are smarter and experts in all things. :dizzy

[spurster]

I think one reason for focusing on hate crimes is that they can have a larger terroristic effect on groups, such as the way the KKK terrorized blacks. Another reason is so that police and prosecutors are put on notice to pay attention to these crimes rather than ignoring or downplaying them. Just like some ministers, the police and prosecutors might not have much sympathy for gays.

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree with Dr. Dobson. It is a very scary path. You
can be prosecuted for what you think and say.

You can't be prosecuted, in the main, for what you think or say. You would be prosecuted, under hate crimes legislation, for what you've done. Why you did it (what you thought) would only affect the degree of your crime and the severity of your sentence in most cases.

Of course, you already can be prosecuted for what you think and say -- at least with regard to inchoate crimes like conspiracy (which requires proof of what the defendants were thinking and what they said), attempt (which generally compels proof of what the defendant thought and what he or she said), and solicitation.

So, this notion that we don't already punish thought and speech, at least in some circumstances, is ridiculous.


Regardless of what people would like you to believe
homosexuality is a sexual practice, not a lifestyle as some
want to profess.

An interesting non-sequitur. I'm not sure that "a sexual practice" and "a lifestyle" are internally inconsistent. I'm guessing, though, that this is still another run at conclusively proving the old cannard that its a choice. Is it your belief that those who, in your words, choose to exercise their prerogative to engage in that sexual practice are somehow subjecting themselves to the possiblity of being singled out to be victims of violent crimes?


Once more we see politicians getting involved where
they have no business. It has always been a mystery
to me how politicians, when they get elected, think
they are smarter and experts in all things. :dizzy

Well, generally, we elect politicians to create legislation that reflects the general will of the people. Obviously, as this thread indicates, there is some faction of the general public that believes that hate crimes legislation is a worthwhile thing. Strikingly, only politicians can enact such a law, so, in that sense, after they are elected to office, politicians are best situated to create the law that some believe to be necessary. That you disagree with that course, of course, isn't proof that it's not the government's business.

As I've said before, I don't disagree with the notion that the better course here is to subsume the concept of hate crimes within the notion of criminal intent. I'm not entirely sure why it makes any difference that the intent behind the crime was revenge, or homophobia, or xenophobia, or pure bloodlust. An intentional crime is an intentional crime. The reasons for distinguishing hate crimes from other intentional crimes strike me as fairly weak, since prosecutorial discretion would still exist even after a hate crimes statute was invoked. The only real difference a hate crime law might make, again, is with regard to enhancing punishments; but that same objective can be accomplished by enhancing punishments for any intentional crime.

What I find strikingly odd about this debate is that those who are generally on the left are now arguing for stiffer punishments for certain crimes, while those who are generally on the right are essentially arguing that punishments need not be as severe. It's a dizzying sight.

[Mr. Peabody]

What I find strikingly odd about this debate is that those who are generally on the left are now arguing for stiffer punishments for certain crimes, while those who are generally on the right are essentially arguing that punishments need not be as severe. It's a dizzying sight.

:lol You're right. This may be one of the few issues where criminal defense lawyers actually side with the GOP.

[Yonivore]

What I find strikingly odd about this debate is that those who are generally on the left are now arguing for stiffer punishments for certain crimes, while those who are generally on the right are essentially arguing that punishments need not be as severe. It's a dizzying sight.
I haven't really kept up with this thread but, if you're implying my dislike of hate crimes legislation amounts to desiring leniency on those who would, under such laws, received an enhanced penalty, you couldn't be more wrong.

As a prime example, I would refer you t the James Byrd case wherein Mr. Byrd (black) was dragged to death by three men (white). Then Governor Bush's refusal to sign Hate Crimes legislation into law was excoriated by the race-baiters, using this case as support.

Two of the defendents in the Byrd case were sentenced to death and one to life in prison (I'm not sure if that means "without parole" anymore). I wouldn't have been upset if the third had been sentenced to death as well.

Tell me what Hate Crimes legislation would have done to enhance those penalties?

I'm opposed to Hate Crimes legislation because it demotes victims of crimes not perpetrated as a result of some prejudice. Justice shouldn't be meted out based on your race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...

[FromWayDowntown]

I haven't really kept up with this thread but, if you're implying my dislike of hate crimes legislation amounts to desiring leniency on those who would, under such laws, received an enhanced penalty, you couldn't be more wrong.

I'm not implying anything about you, Mr. Sensitive. It's not always about you. My point was far more general -- I think many in this forum who are supporting hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be appalled by the notion of imposing stiffer penalties (more liberal use of the death penalty, for instance); I think many in this forum who are against hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be applauding the notion of punishing criminals more severely. Obviously, not everyone can be neatly categorized. It was a broad observation -- and I still think that it is essentially correct.


As a prime example, I would refer you t the James Byrd case wherein Mr. Byrd (black) was dragged to death by three men (white). Then Governor Bush's refusal to sign Hate Crimes legislation into law was excoriated by the race-baiters, using this case as support.

Two of the defendents in the Byrd case were sentenced to death and one to life in prison (I'm not sure if that means "without parole" anymore). I wouldn't have been upset if the third had been sentenced to death as well.

I agree with you in principle. I think the intent to kill Mr. Byrd, regardless of his race, was enough to warrant the stiffest penalties that the law allows. I don't personally favor the death penalty, but I certainly think that the law should allow for imposition of the stiffest sentences for those who commit intentional or pre-meditated murders. Hate crime is just another way of saying intentional crime, in my mind. Again, while I can see the policy arguments made by Hate Crime legislation advocates, I think the solution to the issue can be far more easily accomplished.

What I disdain in this debate is the empty (and erroneous) rhetoric on both sides.


Tell me what Hate Crimes legislation would have done to enhance those penalties?

Again, if all intentional crimes can be prosecuted the same way, nothing. I think it would probably be unconstitutional for a State to do any of the following: (1) to make a Hate Crime homicide a capital offense without proof concerning the occurrence of another, concurrent crime against the decedent; or (2) to enhance penalties for, say, assault to equalize it with a penalty for homicide based solely on the characterization of the crime as a "hate crime." The solution, I think, is to be consistent in meting out punishments for intentional crimes -- hate crimes are decidedly intentional crimes.


I'm opposed to Hate Crimes legislation because it demotes victims of crimes not perpetrated as a result of some prejudice. Justice shouldn't be meted out based on your race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...

Again, I agree with you there.

[Yonivore]

I'm not implying anything about you, Mr. Sensitive. It's not always about you. My point was far more general -- I think many in this forum who are supporting hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be appalled by the notion of imposing stiffer penalties (more liberal use of the death penalty, for instance); I think many in this forum who are against hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be applauding the notion of punishing criminals more severely. Obviously, not everyone can be neatly categorized. It was a broad observation -- and I still think that it is essentially correct.
And, yet, a third category of people see no correlation between their stance on punishment and their stance on hate crimes legislation.

Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement on the rest.

[xrayzebra]

yonivore just has this thing against gay_abc


It would be interesting to hear about the gays being
against the straights once in a while. And their attacks
on the straights for just being straight.

[BradLohaus]

Don't hate crime laws represent victim dicrimination as well?

Say I get beaten up by a bunch of fellow white guys because they don't like me for a non-hate crime reason, and they all get 2 years in jail.

A minority gets beaten up by a bunch of white guys who don't like him because he's a minority, and they get 5 years in jail because it's a hate crime.

I just got screwed. Why didn't my attackers get 5 years? I got beaten up just as bad. I've just been treated as a second class citizen.

Why don't we just take the hate crime penalties and apply them to all crimes of that nature? Somebody has probably already suggested that.

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't hate crime laws represent victim dicrimination as well?

Say I get beaten up by a bunch of fellow white guys because they don't like me for a non-hate crime reason, and they all get 2 years in jail.

A minority gets beaten up by a bunch of white guys who don't like him because he's a minority, and they get 5 years in jail because it's a hate crime.

I just got screwed. Why didn't my attackers get 5 years? I got beaten up just as bad. I've just been treated as a second class citizen.

Why don't we just take the hate crime penalties and apply them to all crimes of that nature? Somebody has probably already suggested that.

You could argue the same thing about this country's employment laws. Say you get fired because you have an ugly haircut. There's probably no recourse for you in the law. However, if someone in a protected class is terminated based on their protected status, they have legal recourse under the law.

The rationale is that we are trying to reduce the instances of adverse events based on these protected traits and therefore, the liability (civil or criminal) is more severe.

[Duff McCartney]

Everyone will be held accountable for our actions to a higher authority (ahemmm GOD)... and this will happen regardless of whether we believe said authority exists.

"I don't judge Homer and Marge...that's for a vengeful god to do."

[Yonivore]

You could argue the same thing about this country's employment laws. Say you get fired because you have an ugly haircut. There's probably no recourse for you in the law. However, if someone in a protected class is terminated based on their protected status, they have legal recourse under the law.
Comparing criminal victims to employment practices? Sorry, not even close. But, for the record, I think private employers, not subject to being contracted by a government entity for supplies or services, should be able to fire, or hire, for whatever reason they like...including bad hair or race.

It's their fucking business and their fucking investment.

Government employment is another matter and should, as the law requires, be colorblind. And, I believe that should go for any business that ever hopes to serve as a government contractor in any capacity. Ugly hair -- if the owner refuses to remedy -- could be cause for termination if appearance is a relevant factor for employment.


The rationale is that we are trying to reduce the instances of adverse events based on these protected traits and therefore, the liability (civil or criminal) is more severe.
Why not just try to reduce the instances of adverse events? Period.

If your laying in a ditch bleeding because somebody put a bullet through your back, does is really fucking matter that they did it because they didn't like your race or lifestyle choices? Is it any more or less serious for the victim? Seriously, do robbery/murder victims bleed less or die in some mitigated manner that warrants their killers be treated differently than a prejudice/murder victim?

What part of the "equal protection clause," of the fourteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, do you and all these "hate crimes" proponents not understand?


"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[SRJ]

Yep, but 99% of the population will do the latter

Nothing says ridiculous generalization like citing 99% of the population.

[Mr. Peabody]

Comparing criminal victims to employment practices? Sorry, not even close.

The only comparison I was making was that in both situations you have the same act, but with different consequences based on a charateristic of the "victim."


But, for the record, I think private employers, not subject to being contracted by a government entity for supplies or services, should be able to fire, or hire, for whatever reason they like...including bad hair or race.

Well, the only thing you are asking for then is that private employers be allowed to make employment decisions based on race, gender, religion, etc., because in an at-will state, employers can already terminate people for any reason not related to the protected traits listed above.



What part of the "equal protection clause," of the fourteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, do you and all these "hate crimes" proponents not understand?

Who said I was a "hate crime proponent"? :bang I specifically posted a similar scenario to what you described and agreed that a victim is a victim regardless of race. Don't be so quick to try and refute my posts. Unlike some here, I don't force my thoughts into alignment with the alleged party line.

[FromWayDowntown]

What part of the "equal protection clause," of the fourteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, do you and all these "hate crimes" proponents not understand?

You do realize, of course, that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been construed to afford greater protections to "suspect classes" and to afford intermediate protections to "protected classes."

As much as some might wish it wasn't true, our society isn't that far removed -- historically or socially -- from times of explicit racism and (now unlawful) discrimination both in the private and public sectors.

I understand where you're going with your argument, but I don't think the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is particularly likely to be your best ally -- if anything, judicial constructions of the 14th Amendment tend to favor those who support hate crimes legislation.

[Oh, Gee!!]

From the Baptist Association Director.... it was a memo to all pastors in the area. It wasn't a memo to single him out - it was with reference to this particular bill.

which branch of the government is that?

[Phenomanul]

which branch of the government is that?


Hardy har har.... you missed the point.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hardy har har.... you missed the point.


This is you: "bad implications......dad got a memo.....can't discrimihate from the pulpit.....world is ending.....OMGz."

what was your point except to imply that your father's first amendment rights are being stifled b/c of a propsed "hate-crimes" bill?

[Yonivore]

You do realize, of course, that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been construed to afford greater protections to "suspect classes" and to afford intermediate protections to "protected classes."

As much as some might wish it wasn't true, our society isn't that far removed -- historically or socially -- from times of explicit racism and (now unlawful) discrimination both in the private and public sectors.

I understand where you're going with your argument, but I don't think the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is particularly likely to be your best ally -- if anything, judicial constructions of the 14th Amendment tend to favor those who support hate crimes legislation.
The key word in your entire post is "construed."

[Oh, Gee!!]

The key word in your entire post is "construed."


are you suggesting that we now have an activist SCOTUS that will go against years and years of legal precedent in order to circumvent the legislative process? :dramaquee

[FromWayDowntown]

The key word in your entire post is "construed."

Those constructions are the Law of the Land, Big Guy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Those constructions are the Law of the Land, Big Guy.


but now he has Roberts and Alito to un-construe all that hippie nonsense about equal protection

[FromWayDowntown]

but now he has Roberts and Alito to un-construe all that hippie nonsense about equal protection

The potential erosion of stare decisis is a beautiful thing for some, I guess.

[Yonivore]

The potential erosion of stare decisis is a beautiful thing for some, I guess.
Yep.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yep.

It's funny -- when liberal judges do that, they're called judicial activists.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yep.

What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.

Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!

:drunk :drunk :drunk

[FromWayDowntown]

What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.

Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!

:drunk :drunk :drunk

Liability Roulette -- now you don't even have to go to Vegas to gamble away your fortune, or even your life.

[Phenomanul]

"I don't judge Homer and Marge...that's for a vengeful god to do."


That's an incoherency.... GOD is JUST and delivers justice according to His supreme wisdom. Sometimes it is delayed and sometimes it is delivered instantly. The fact that justice is served according to His Holy and Righteous standards does not make GOD 'vengeful'.

[Yonivore]

It's funny -- when liberal judges do that, they're called judicial activists.
Some law is just wrongly construed by the Court. Hey, we all make mistakes, nothing says it can't be corrected.

Roe vs. Wade being a glaring example.

[Yonivore]

What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.

Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!

:drunk :drunk :drunk
Suggest you read Article I, Sections 9 and 10, of the U. S. Constitution regarding prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

[FromWayDowntown]

Some law is just wrongly construed by the Court. Hey, we all make mistakes, nothing says it can't be corrected.

Roe vs. Wade being a glaring example.

Of course, one would have to think it's a mistake before believing that a construction was wrong and setting out to correct it.

And, of course, there is that whole constancy in the law issue. It's difficult to imagine that even this Supreme Court would be at all inclined to re-think the fundamental tenets of its Equal Protection jurisprudence. The Court's not generally in the business of eroding "rights" that have become bedrock principles of constitutional law.

[Yonivore]

Of course, one would have to think it's a mistake before believing that a construction was wrong and setting out to correct it.

And, of course, there is that whole constancy in the law issue. It's difficult to imagine that even this Supreme Court would be at all inclined to re-think the fundamental tenets of its Equal Protection jurisprudence. The Court's not generally in the business of eroding "rights" that have become bedrock principles of constitutional law.
Maybe it's time the Court did...look at their previous bad decisions, that is.

[Mr. Peabody]

Suggest you read Article I, Sections 9 and 10, of the U. S. Constitution regarding prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

The interpretation of which would change from court to court under your scenario.

[FromWayDowntown]

Maybe it's time the Court did...look at their previous bad decisions, that is.

I'm guessing you should be the final arbiter of what is or isn't bad -- what with your vast legal experience?

[Duff McCartney]

That's an incoherency.... GOD is JUST and delivers justice according to His supreme wisdom. Sometimes it is delayed and sometimes it is delivered instantly. The fact that justice is served according to His Holy and Righteous standards does not make GOD 'vengeful'.

The thing that bothers me most about that reply...is that justice is delayed and sometimes it is not. Complete and utter garbage...and I just can't accept that.

I'm not a believer..and the more I read scripture whether it be The Bible, Koran, or the Torah..the farther away it pushes me from religion...but to quote Elie Wiesel in Night..."I concurred with Job. I wasn't denying his existence but I question his absolute justice."

[Nbadan]

Life, Interrupted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwji7g_VK0U)

[boutons_]

A Bustling Hate-Crime Industry

By George F. Will
Sunday, May 13, 2007; B07

Political entrepreneurship involves devising benefits to excite or mollify niche constituencies. Hence HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which has passed the House, trailing clouds of sanctimony -- lots of members announced their hatred of hate.

Hate-crime laws -- 45 states already have them; Congress does not mind being duplicative -- mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that government especially disapproves of. That is, crimes committed because of, not merely accompanied by, those thoughts. Mind-reading juries are required to distinguish causation from correlation.

The federal hate-crime law enacted in 1968 enhanced punishments only for crimes against persons engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. HR 1592 would extend special federal protections to persons who are crime victims because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. But there are many other groups, so there will be other hate-crime bills.

Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse). Local law enforcement organizations favor HR 1592, which promises money. Among the more than 200 organizations supposedly ardent for the bill are the American Music Therapy Association, the Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Catholics for a Free Choice, Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries, the International Dyslexia Association, Rock the Vote, and the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual. Who knew?

Hate-crime laws are indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy. They score points in the sentiment competition by conferring special government concern for more and more particular groups.

Laws hold us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. But government increasingly wants to inventory and furnish our minds, removing socially undesirable desires. Law has always had the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct, but hate-crime laws treat certain actions as especially wicked because the actors had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind.

This draws government steadily deeper into stigmatizing certain thoughts and attitudes, which incites more and more groups to clamor for inclusion in the ranks of the especially protected. And Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute notes that prosecutors of supposed hate crimes must pry into defendants' lives -- books and magazines read, Internet sites visited, the nature of his or her friends -- to uncover evidence of unsavory thinking.

If the bill makes it to the president's desk, he probably will veto it because it is moral exhibitionism by Congress with no constitutional authorization. HR 1592 justifies itself under Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The bill simply asserts that hate crimes affect such commerce and are committed using articles that have "traveled" in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, however, has rejected"the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce. The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local."

By conferring special status -- enhanced protection -- on certain government-favored groups, HR 1592 traduces the principle of equality before the law. Yet Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it honors "the tradition of our Founders, that every person is created equal." Here is another sample of the House debate, from Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.):

"My granddaughter Julia is 3 years old. She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully. The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness. It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for HR 1592."

Plucky Julia aside, questions remain. Are all rapes hate crimes because rapists pick the victims because of their gender? When in 1989, a gang of black and Hispanic youths went "wilding" in Central Park, raping and savagely beating a white jogger, was this considered a hate crime? No, because the youths also assaulted some Hispanics, so their punishment was not enhanced.

When a surveillance camera recently taped a mugger beating and robbing a 101-year-old New York woman, he was charged with a hate crime -- presumably hatred of the elderly. His attack on a 51-year-old woman was not a hate crime. Complications multiply, protected categories proliferate. Next? People who wear fur or eat meat? Some writings by the killer at Virginia Tech expressed hatred of the rich, but they are not a category protected in this year's hate-crime legislation. Perhaps in next year's.

[email protected]