Hate crimes legislation

[David S]

During the 2000 debates, Gore criticized Bush because Texas had not enacted a hate crimes law and he cited a recent racially motivated murder as the reason why Texas needs hate crime legislation. Bush pointed out that the white culprits were sentenced to death, but Gore still seemed to think they needed hate crime laws.

One wonders what the hate crime law would do thats more severe than the death penalty... hang them twice?

[AkSaber]

Opposed.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I voted "Neutral".  I am not big on the idea of changing the punishment or stature of a crime based on what the person was thinking while they were committing it.  That being said, I sympathize with the need to use the law to protect vulnerable minorities.

[Gabu]

I am not big on the idea of changing the punishment or stature of a crime based on what the person was thinking while they were committing it.

I would say that this is okay to a certain extent.  For example, the difference between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter is just that - what the person was thinking while he or she was committing it.  The penalties range from very large for first-degree murder to moderate (relatively speaking) for manslaughter, because the frame of mind that the person was in when committing the killing dictates the person's relative level of culpability as well as the level of danger that the person would pose to the general public if released.

[Gustaf]

Thanks to Emsworth for supporting me on the point of manslaughter v murder. I used to be split on this, but not anymore. It's fully valid to punish someone depending on the intention of the crime,. If it was simply to kill one person, that is not as bad as if it was BOTH killing someone AND persecuting an entire group of people.

[opebo]

The actual "merits" are immaterial-- leftists don't care about protecting people from crime anyway. It's purely a socio-political ploy, nothing more.

I have to say that I think you are largely correct.  Real leftists think of criminals as the real victims anyway, and believe society is to blame for crime, and therefore should be forced to endure crime.  It is a sick philosophy.

dazzleman, I realize you may find this philosophy 'sick' - in other words you don't like it - and yet it is the most realistic explanation for what is going on around you.  I know it is sometimes hard to face the ugly truth, but your entire society is a 'crime'.

[David S]

The actual "merits" are immaterial-- leftists don't care about protecting people from crime anyway. It's purely a socio-political ploy, nothing more.

I have to say that I think you are largely correct.  Real leftists think of criminals as the real victims anyway, and believe society is to blame for crime, and therefore should be forced to endure crime.  It is a sick philosophy.

dazzleman, I realize you may find this philosophy 'sick' - in other words you don't like it - and yet it is the most realistic explanation for what is going on around you.  I know it is sometimes hard to face the ugly truth, but your entire society is a 'crime'.

Opebo
Do you actually believe the things you say or do you just do it to be contrary?

[minionofmidas]

Imagine a high school student spray-paints "Go Eagles" grafitti on a wall somewhere. That's vandalism, and he should be punished. But don't we all know that if that kid had sprayed "Kill Gays" or "Kill Jews" on the wall, it'd be a much more reprehensible thing? Don't we know deep down that such an action should bring a harsher punishment?

Only in the sense that the second is morally reprehensible.

[Blue Rectangle]

Oppose.

The ACLU recently flip-flopped and supported a federal hate crimes bill:

ACLU Endorses Federal Hate Crimes Legislation for First Time

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea why the federal government must "punish acts of discrimination" by private individuals.

The second part of the quote doesn't make sense either.  Are violent acts only punished when victims are not also being discriminated against?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Further evidence that the ACLU selectively ignores parts of the Bill of Rights.

[Speed of Sound]

Like AA, I fall right down the middle on hate crime/speech legislation. I think if I had to vote on a bill for any of these things I would have to abstain.

[WalterMitty]

support.

[dazzleman]

The actual "merits" are immaterial-- leftists don't care about protecting people from crime anyway. It's purely a socio-political ploy, nothing more.

I have to say that I think you are largely correct.  Real leftists think of criminals as the real victims anyway, and believe society is to blame for crime, and therefore should be forced to endure crime.  It is a sick philosophy.

dazzleman, I realize you may find this philosophy 'sick' - in other words you don't like it - and yet it is the most realistic explanation for what is going on around you.  I know it is sometimes hard to face the ugly truth, but your entire society is a 'crime'.

The blue opebo has simply gone undercover, and emerged as a liberal Democrat who takes such positions as to undermine the entire position of the party.  You're doing more for the Republicans than when your avatar was blue.

[David S]

The actual "merits" are immaterial-- leftists don't care about protecting people from crime anyway. It's purely a socio-political ploy, nothing more.

I have to say that I think you are largely correct.  Real leftists think of criminals as the real victims anyway, and believe society is to blame for crime, and therefore should be forced to endure crime.  It is a sick philosophy.

dazzleman, I realize you may find this philosophy 'sick' - in other words you don't like it - and yet it is the most realistic explanation for what is going on around you.  I know it is sometimes hard to face the ugly truth, but your entire society is a 'crime'.

The blue opebo has simply gone undercover, and emerged as a liberal Democrat who takes such positions as to undermine the entire position of the party.  You're doing more for the Republicans than when your avatar was blue.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was just some nut who had gone off the deep end.

[Democratic Hawk]

Support. I think for people to be targets of crime purely on the grounds of, for example, their faith, race or sexual orientation is heinous

Dave

[Beet]

Imagine a high school student spray-paints "Go Eagles" grafitti on a wall somewhere. That's vandalism, and he should be punished. But don't we all know that if that kid had sprayed "Kill Gays" or "Kill Jews" on the wall, it'd be a much more reprehensible thing? Don't we know deep down that such an action should bring a harsher punishment?

I would strongly disagree. The government should not punish someone who spray paints "Kill Jews" more than it would punish someone who spray paints "Go Eagles." What right does the government have to decide that one opinion is more reprehensible than another? Although you or I might find anti-semitism reprehensible, the government should have no power to make such a judgment.

The underlying crime in this hypothetical is vandalizing someone else's property. The opinion expressed in the course of the vandalism should not, in my opinion, result in any additional penalty.

The same argument exists for general hate crime laws. Antisemitism, misogyny, and the like are all matters of opinion. Holding any particular opinion while committing a crime should neither increase nor decrease the penalty.

Yet how does one distinguish the distinction between a hate crime and a regular crime, and that between first degree murder and a manslaughter? How "Kill Bob my next-door neighbor" is less of an opinion than "Kill Jews"... they are both variants of the opinion "Kill X". Yet if one kills Bob accidentally, they are given a much more lenient sentence than if one kills Bob in a premeditated manner.

This idea of hate crimes legislation seems a bit strange to me because we seem to be elevating hate to a level that it perhaps does not deserve-- or perhaps it does. I'm on the fence on this one.

[dazzleman]

The actual "merits" are immaterial-- leftists don't care about protecting people from crime anyway. It's purely a socio-political ploy, nothing more.

I have to say that I think you are largely correct.  Real leftists think of criminals as the real victims anyway, and believe society is to blame for crime, and therefore should be forced to endure crime.  It is a sick philosophy.

dazzleman, I realize you may find this philosophy 'sick' - in other words you don't like it - and yet it is the most realistic explanation for what is going on around you.  I know it is sometimes hard to face the ugly truth, but your entire society is a 'crime'.

The blue opebo has simply gone undercover, and emerged as a liberal Democrat who takes such positions as to undermine the entire position of the party.  You're doing more for the Republicans than when your avatar was blue.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was just some nut who had gone off the deep end.

Either theory is equally valid.  Opebo would simply say that he is responding to your simple-minded posts by telling you how the real world really works.

[angus]

By “hate crime” logic, if I burn down a white guy's house, I only go to jail for however long an arson goes to jail.  But if I burn down a black guy's house, why that makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it?  I go to jail for arson plus a little bit for being unlucky enough to pick out a house that belongs to a guy who's a different color than I.  If I kick a German in the nuts, I'm just one violent jerk kicking another jerk in the nuts.  No big deal.  If I kick a Chinese guy in the nuts, all the sudden I'm a chink-o-phobe and deserved to be buried under the jail.

How’s that good legislation?!   very smart laws we have there.  Most non-Americans love to make fun of something stoopid about the USA.  "hate crimes" legislation invites criticism like nothing else I can think of.  You have my blessing to call our legislators complete morons over this kind of stuff.

You know, sometimes, if I beat up a bulldyke, maybe I'm just the sort of guy who beats women, and the fact that she's a bulldyke is irrelevant to me.  If I slap around the negro next door, maybe I'm just a violent drunk asshole, and would slap him around no more or less if he were a nerdy white jewish MIT graduate.  If I rob a cabbie at gunpoint, and he happens to be white, I get a lighter sentence than if he happens to be a Paki.  WTF?  The sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or religion of the guy I robbed shouldn’t matter.  This is bigoted law.  It’s antithetical to meritocracy.  But worse than that, it’s bizarre!  It makes no sense.

And being an asshole is protected thought, anyway.  You have the right to dislike blacks, white, chinese, gays, guys with three nipples, paraplegics, left-handed hookers, blondes, professional wrestlers, guys with nose-rings, tattooed chicks, lesbians, librarians, eskimos, smokers, etc.  So punishing people for their thought is counter to the spirit at least, if not the letter, of the higher laws of the land.  And anyway there is no "hate crime" which is on the books which isn't already prosecutable under current law.  If I take a can of spray paint and mark up a Catholic cemetary, guess what?  I'm already breaking a law.  The fact that it happens to be a Catholic, rather than a WASP cemetery is totally irrelevant.  It's just unnecessary bureaucracy, at best, thought control at worst.

[opebo]

And being an asshole is protected thought, anyway.  You have the right to dislike blacks, white, chinese, gays, guys with three nipples, paraplegics, left-handed hookers, blondes, professional wrestlers, guys with nose-rings, tattooed chicks, lesbians, librarians, eskimos, smokers, etc.  So punishing people for their thought is counter to the spirit at least, if not the letter, of the higher laws of the land. 

No, intent and motive play a part in most prosecutions already, angus, particularly those involving violent crime. 

It strikes me as hilarious that you are bothered by these harmless laws, and not by real limitations upon your freedoms such as drug laws, laws against particular kinds of sex, etc.

[J. J.]

I happen to be disabled and look disabled.  Suppose a mugger decides I'm an easy target, because of that.  Does that qualify as a hate crime?

[dazzleman]

I happen to be disabled and look disabled.  Suppose a mugger decides I'm an easy target, because of that.  Does that qualify as a hate crime?

I wouldn't call it a hate crime.

However, I think there needs to be a relationship between risk and penalty.  In my management classes, we did relatively simple probability analyses that I could apply here.  The calculation a person does before deciding whether or not to do something is to multiply (a) the expected outcome X (b) the probability that that outcome will occur.

In this case, of course, there are several possible outcomes that must be aggregated together.  One is the possibility that the intended victim will fight back in some way and injure the mugger.  The other is the possibility of arrest and prosecution.  So I think that the lower the chance of the first case, the greater the penalty must be in the second case in order to deter crime.

That's why the law sometimes provides for stiffer penalties for mugging older people.  This is a matter of practicality, not divining motive for the crime.

[angus]

JJ, You mentioned the cane before, and I hadn't wanted to ask about it because it seems like an intrusive question, but now that you have brought it up several times:  Do you always use a cane when you go out?  If so, then yes you probably look like an easy target.  But then for all I know you may be a very big man.  I'm about 160.  For the sake of argument, let's say you look more like 200.  A 200-pound (armed with a cane!) may look less like an easy target than a 160-pound man without one.  But that's a judgement call.  Anyway, I think anyone who robs another individual of his money has committed a crime, and such an individual can be prosecuted under current law.  I have no way of knowing whether such an individual who robs me specifically because he's a "robin hood" sort of guy and who sees me of being worthy of robbing merely because I'm a healthy-looking white guy who drives a Mercedes.  (Sure, you could argue that such a crime is based on hatred for the plutocratic class, even though such hatred would be severely misplaced on a middle class worker like me.)  Nor do I have any way of knowing whether someone is handicap-phobic merely because he chooses to rob a man with a cane.  But I can tell you that anyone who robs either of us has a committed a crime.  If we are mugged at knifepoint, such a crime is already prosecutable under current law.  I don't care who the guy that robbed me does or doesn't hate.  I just want my wallet back!

Opebo, I am bothered by all sorts of restrictions as my posts will show.  And in fact I do not believe I am personally affected by such laws that attempt to punish me harder if I rob a blind, gay, black man, for example, than if I rob a sighted, straight, white man.  I'm just saying such laws set a bad precedent, are unnecessary, and attempt thought control.  Intent??  If the intent is to rob, then that's sufficient to prosecute.

I've been accused of being too lenient on criminals before.  Admittedly, I oppose capital punishment in all cases, and I often bitch about our prisions being full of non-violent drug offenders.  And generally I think we should give all sorts of first offenders a break because you don't turn potential criminals into citizens by locking them away to be raped and abused.  But I don't think that's what's going on here!  I think this "hate crimes" B.S. is a separate issue.  Yes, I still think we're harsh on criminals in general.  But my beef with "hate crimes" legislation isn't primarly that it creates arbitrarily harsher sentences for anyone unlucky enough to happen to pick someone of a different color or sexual orientation to rob.  My problem is that it's far far more sinister than overly harsh.  It's thought control.  It's really bad business, this "hate crimes" stuff.  And the really sad thing is that legislatures are full of lawyers who know all this.  They understand law much better than the average guy on the street.  But they're so intent on getting re-elected that they'll dishonor their own profession just to stay trendy.  And if "hate crimes" are currently fashionable with the great unwashed masses, they'll sell out their own understanding of law and honor and precedent just to ensure that they'll get sent back to the state capitol next term.  That's a sad state of affairs.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I oppose them. Why should a crime be treated differently ust because of the target?

[J. J.]

JJ, You mentioned the cane before, and I hadn't wanted to ask about it because it seems like an intrusive question, but now that you have brought it up several times:  Do you always use a cane when you go out?  If so, then yes you probably look like an easy target.  But then for all I know you may be a very big man.  I'm about 160.  For the sake of argument, let's say you look more like 200.  A 200-pound (armed with a cane!) may look less like an easy target than a 160-pound man without one.  But that's a judgement call.  Anyway, I think anyone who robs another individual of his money has committed a crime, and such an individual can be prosecuted under current law.  I have no way of knowing whether such an individual who robs me specifically because he's a "robin hood" sort of guy and who sees me of being worthy of robbing merely because I'm a healthy-looking white guy who drives a Mercedes.  (Sure, you could argue that such a crime is based on hatred for the plutocratic class, even though such hatred would be severely misplaced on a middle class worker like me.)  Nor do I have any way of knowing whether someone is handicap-phobic merely because he chooses to rob a man with a cane.  But I can tell you that anyone who robs either of us has a committed a crime.  If we are mugged at knifepoint, such a crime is already prosecutable under current law.  I don't care who the guy that robbed me does or doesn't hate.  I just want my wallet back!

Anything above 50 feet, I use a cane.  I also wear a quite obvious back brace, which I normally wear over my clothing (but under a coat).  When my back is strained, I basically look like I have had a stroke.

My particular problem with hate crime legislation is that do I suddenly become a "protected class" so that if someone mugs me is now committing a "hate crime."

[angus]

I think I understand you.  You deserve the same protection as any other member of society.  No more, no less.  And I agree completely with you.

Of course, it's a matter of courtesy that retail outlets may reserve the best parking places, and subways the most convenient seating, for persons with physical disabilities.  And these reservations may be held upon penalty of fine to those who sit in assigned seats, or park in assigned spaces.  And the fines, as posted, seem like a reasonable way of reserving those seats.  That seems a very different issue than "hate crimes" legislation to me, by the way.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't support it.

If I kill you, it's probably reasonable to suggest that I hated you.

More feel good bullsh**t.