Bush Threatens to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation (And Don’t Worry You’re Still Free to Be A Bigot)
| May 4th, 2007The House of Representatives voted to extend hate crimes protections those who are the victims of crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Here’s a quote from the New York Times:
By 237 to 180, the House voted to include crimes spurred by a victim’s “gender, sexual orientation or gender identity” under the hate-crime designation, which now applies to crimes spurred by the victim’s race, religion, color or national origin.
“The bill is passed,” Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, announced to applause, most of it from Democrats.
Similar legislation is moving through the Senate. But even assuming that a bill emerges from the full Congress, it will face a veto by President Bush on grounds that it is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable,” the White House said before the House vote.
The House did not pass the bill by a margin wide enough to override a veto, which requires a two-thirds majority. The Senate is not expected to do so either.
Debate over the legislation has been spirited, and while some of it has addressed whether the bill is really necessary, the arguments have also been colored by issues of conscience and notions of personal morality.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said the House vote represented “a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences.” Civil rights groups have long urged that people who are attacked because of their sexuality be given additional protections.
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a conservative lobbying group, told listeners to his radio program that the bill’s real purpose was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality,” according to The Associated Press.
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about. For example, I found this site, which makes the following claims.
Today, conservative groups and lawmakers warned that the measure undermines freedom of speech.
They say it could lead to arrests of Christians who speak out against homosexuality.
Conservatives also say the bill would make homosexuals more important than other Americans — because crimes against them would have harsher penalties than crimes against others.
Well folks this is false (I thought lying was in the 10 Commandments.), and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation does not curtail freedom of speech, so if the conservative Christian activists want to have public protests denigrating women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people, they can do so. However, if they commit a crime in the process of their “protest” and that crime is motivated by bigotry, they could get a harsher sentence. But they have to commit a crime. So they can say God hates women and gays all day long, but if they decide to go and beat up a women/gay man/lesbian/transgender person while yelling I hate bitches, fags, and dykes. The prosecutor will now have the option to take on a hate crimes charge to the assault.
It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.
What matters is the motivation of a crime. People will still be entitled to believe hateful things, but if they commit crimes motivated by bias, then they will have a harsher penalty.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Also, as far as making victims of hate crimes “more important,” judges currently look at the motivations for crimes, as well as the severity and past criminal record of the defendant, when determining sentencing. All this law does is declare that discriminatory intent is added to the list of aggravating factors.
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I read a good post on this a few weeks ago. To summarize, terrorism and hate crimes both want to influence (terrorize) all members of some class of people by hurting some member(s). So if you say that terrorism is a distinct crime over and above the crime(s) inherent in some specific terrorist act (murder, arson, whatever), but you think hate-crimes legislation is “thought control,” in effect you’re saying that it’s OK to terrorize some classes of people but not others.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
You say that such crimes against heterosexuals are rare, but I would say this is actually untrue; there are many hateful crimes committed against people who are perceived as LGBT, no matter how they identify. Although I think what you were getting at is that people are not often targeted because they are perceived to be straight, and I would agree with this.
This bill protects straight people, too, who do not fit the exact gender roles of what a straight person should be and might get harassed for it. T, over at the Republic of T, has a three-part essay on this that is a must read. It basically talks about how school shooters were harassed and abused as “queer” because they did not fit stereotypes of manliness; it really hammers home how damaging this sort of behavior can be not just to gay people, but to straights as well.
[edited to close link - Mandolin]
This comment was written by exelizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Oops, I apologize for not closing my link tag. >.
This comment was written by exelizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 9:40 am
This goes after thought and speech in a manner that can get tricky.
I’m going to use a black woman as an example, because it’s a deliberate reversal of the usual use of hate crimes that serves to show some of the issues.
Let’s say that a black women gets mugged and shoots the (white) mugger. Let’s say it was perfectly justified (but only she and we know that) and that it was NOT AT ALL motivated by race (but only she and we know that.)
Now, let’s say that the mugger’s (white) girlfriend screams “Hate crime!”
Now what?
Well, folks go to look online. Perhaps someone presents evidence showing that she posted insulting things towards whites. Perhaps she seemed to regard whites as “lesser;” or said she was “angry,” or “hated” whites, or… (not that my opinion matters, but this is often perfectly justified IMO. Just stick with the hypothetical for a moment)
Now what?
Well, the result is that the perfectly valid things she may have posted online are now going to be used against her. THAT is a problem. It is a problem because doing so means that she, and others like her, will get a “chilling effect” on their speech.
I imagine most of you agree so far.
I ALSO feel the same problem exists on the other side. There are many attitudes I find revolting, distasteful, objectionable, disgusting, etc. White supremacists, for example. I don’t like them. But I don’t want to make them illegal. Not because I want them to be heard more–I hate them–but because it is more important to me to prevent the government from dabbling too much in the business of “bad speech” or “bad thoughts.”
In that link Lu writes, there’s an analogy made between terrorism laws and hate crime laws. And I think it’s an apt one, though with the opposite conclusion. Didn’t a lot of people here share my discomfort with parts of the patriot act? Didn’t anyone else cringe at the thought that open criticism of the government was–is–often considered support of the terrorists? Do most of you think existing laws on terrorism are used well, or ethically?
To me, this type of law sets a terrifying precedent. The weapon you rally around can (and if history is any indicator, WILL) at some point be used against you.
When people thought of “three felony strikes” they imagined rapists, not the dude who stole three steaks from Stop & Shop. And when people imagine “hate crimes” or “hate speech” they imagine white supremacists, not radical feminists or race activists. I think this is an error.
Remember all those conversations about why you can’t “switch out” white/black, male/female, etc when talking about statements? Good luck finding that in the hate laws. There’s no “…but I’m on the good side!” defense.
Do you trust the government that much? I don’t. IMO this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about.
What they may be thinking (and I am speculating here) is that these laws are the thin edge of the wedge that will lead to laws such as there are in Canada. There, “hate crimes” include “hate speech” and you can get fined or otherwise punished for it. Here is an example:
The article itself gives links to a couple of other such cases. There have been cases in the U.S. where people have been punished in extra-legal situations. In Oakland the following happened:
Now, who exactly said what remains to be seen; the courts will play this one out. But this feeds many people’s fear that as the definitions of “hate crimes” expand, they will extend into an attack on free speech. I think the history of the First Amendment in this country is a bit stronger than the equivalent in Canada (although I am no expert on Canadian law and would welcome knowledgable commentary on the topic), but in fact this is something that a number of people are worried about given what they are seeing here and in other countries.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I disagree with extending hate crime legislation (and other forms of protection) to sexual orientation and religion. I think this does give certain groups privileged protection. In the case of religion one set of ideas and group identification is privileged and protected, but other affiliations - like political believes - aren ‘t. The same goes with sexual orientation some forms of sexual expression, like hetro and homosexuality, are protected but others - like being a masochist or having other preferences - aren’t.
I think the movement toward elevating religion and sexual orientation in this manner is dangerous. It’s about privileging certain people at the expense of others. We are seeing a shift from these protections which are being expanded from race and national origin to sexual orientation and religion. But there’s a real difference between these two groups. Sexual orientation and religion are ideas and this is an attempt to say some people ideas are more worthy of protection than others.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Sailorman, I suppose a rougue prosecutor could say connect unrelated behaviors, but I think it is indeed very rare.
They know these charges are hard to prove and they only tend to bring them in rare instances where it is fairly clear that discrimination is part of the actual crime.
Most hate crimes are propoerty related crimes and other non-violence crimes, and the perpetrators often do things like spray paint swastikas all over people’s homes, etc.
The point is there is a burden proof on the hate crimes enhancement just like everything else. (And it’s actually much tougher to prove motivations, opposed to just proving that a crime happened.)
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Canada’s anti-hate speech laws have been largely uncontroversial. As I understand it, they are mostly invoked when they specifically try to Incite Action against protected groups. There are still plenty of vocal bigots in Canada, and they can and do say whatever they want. The difference is that nobody can make a sort of generalized verbal threat towards protected groups. There are also, as I understand it, specific exemptions for saying things that are demonstrably true, religious doctrine and topics that are the subject of public debate (which is why so many people have been able to loudly demonstrate their bigotry during Canadian discussion of gay marriage). So the hate speech laws basically only protect people from egregious incitements to hate that are apropos of nothing. And Canadians are not yet living in an Orwellian police state for having had the gall to put protection for minorities above the right of bigots to incite hatred.
This comment was written by Sandra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Personally, I think hate crimes ought to be prosecuted as acts of terrorism, because that’s what they are.
*shrug*
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Sailerman wrote:
I find your argument here extremely unpersuasive. In order for a “chilling effect” on speech to exist, people need to believe that the chance of their speech being punished is significant enough to worry about. So during McCarthyism, for example, people might reasonably have thought “I’d better not advocate for communism, because I could very well lose my job,” and that would have been a chilling effect.
I don’t believe that people see their chances of being mistakenly convicted of racially-motivated assault due to misconstrued self-defense as all that significant, however. Apart from people who actually are planning to commit assaults and other crimes, virtually no one thinks “I’d better not say this thing, because it could be misconstrued once I’m on trial for assault.” Hence, no chilling effect.
Do you conclude from this that we shouldn’t have any laws against terrorism at all, or just that it’s a mistake to have overly broad laws against terrorism?
Yes, “the patriot act” is way too broad. But I don’t conclude that therefore laws against terrorism are always bad and must always be wrong; rather, I conclude that overly-broad anti-terrorism laws are bad, and should be replaced with narrowly written anti-terrorism laws.
The proposed hate crimes legislation is narrowly written, and would not result in people being thrown in jail solely for stating political opinions. It should be supported, for the same reason reasonable, narrow laws against terrorism should be supported.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
James,
This comment was written by Rachel.Religion has been covered for years under hate crimes legislation. That is not part of the current legislation because it is already there.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The latter. I think the laws against terrorism should be incredibly narrow, and should be drawn only as wide as is absolutely necessary. This comes from a general basis: I view motivation and intent as the most difficult, and most suspect (though necessary) parts of our judicial system.
It’s hard enough to get the “real truth” (if such a thing exists) to the question “did she mean to do it?” As a result, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in figuring out of the much more complex question “WHY did she mean to do it?” And I strongly dislike adding a whole new category of crimes whose sole identifier is “why?”
I also disagree with the issues regarding chilling and framing, though we’ll probably have ti agree to disagree. [shrug] I think we’re just coming from different places. I’m a strong civil liberties and first amendment kind of guy, so I weigh this differently than most people, I suspect. Basically, I think hate is bad but shouldn’t be illegal; proponents of hate crime laws disagree. And as a result I come to different conclusions than you.
I can easily see how folks would feel otherwise. Just like terrorism: some folks feel no law is too strict if attack risks are reduced, and some (like me) lean towards increased risk in exchange for increased freedom. I disagree with you, but I respect your position.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
The reason I favor hate crimes legislation, Sailorman, is that I think a hate crime does more harm to society than the same crime committed without the hate-based component.
That is, it damages the cohesiveness of our society, turns us against one another, encourages scapegoating of a specific group, etc.
I’ve got no problem with punishing extra for extra harm. It’s just another mitigating factor like premeditation.
Like you, I would oppose punishment for the hate alone without the crime aspect. You can’t be punished just for premeditation, in other words.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It’s important to note that the question of motivation is often central to the *defense* in criminal cases involving queer or transgendered victims. These so-called “panic” defenses still have a lot of traction as mitigating factors in such cases. Of course, I hate this idea, just like I hate the “she asked for it” defense in rape cases, but under the American system it is important to allow each defendant a full chance to defend him/herself. So, given this, shouldn’t prosecutors be allowed to counter this defense (which amounts to excusing crimes because of hate) with a state-sponsored rejection of bigotry?
As a strong civil-liberties supporter (and, consequentally, a strong disliker of hate speech codes) I think the emphasis on speech is a red herring in this situation.
This comment was written by murphy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Sandra:
As I understand it, they are mostly invoked when they specifically try to Incite Action against protected groups. There are still plenty of vocal bigots in Canada, and they can and do say whatever they want. The difference is that nobody can make a sort of generalized verbal threat towards protected groups.
Well, but then explain the cases I cited. And Amp had it right; even the threat of such a thing (especially when a few cases actually get successfully prosecuted) acts as a huge chill on what should be free speech. The purpose of government is to defend free speech, not inhibit it.
Murphy:
but under the American system it is important to allow each defendant a full chance to defend him/herself. So, given this, shouldn’t prosecutors be allowed to counter this defense (which amounts to excusing crimes because of hate) with a state-sponsored rejection of bigotry?
No. It’s part of the American legal system is that turnabout is not fair play when the two entities involved are the individual vs. the State. The power of the State is too overwhelming to allow it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The only question I have is “How many times has a hate crime been commited on heterosexuals by gays?” If any decernment at all is used, one would consider the fact that the GLBTI community rarely goes out of ther way to find some heterosexuals to beat up. I doubt if James Dobson has to worry about that happening, but I’d like to see him get on a church bus in Texas wearing a skirt and not have different feelings about the hate crimes bill after he got off that bus, if he were still alive of course.
Julie Z (Trans-woman)
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Over on another thread, sylphhead asked, “do you not see the parallels between hate crime and terrorism?” That’s a digression from the other topic, so I’m answering it here.
Yes, I do see parallels between hate crime and terrorism, but they’re different parallels: In both cases, what matters is not what’s thought or what’s said; what matters is what’s done, and in a society that values free thought and free speech, it’s what’s done that should be addressed by the law.
An argument could be made that all murders are terrorism: they say that people should be afraid of violent people seeking to solve their problems in the only way they know.
Another argument could be made that there is so very much that can be decided incorrectly in legal cases, and therefore it’s best to focus on deeds rather than words or thoughts.
And a third argument could be made that laws proliferate madly. That benefits lawyers and legal systems, but it does not necessarily benefit society.
If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. If some people—poor people of all races and those who are considered outside the protection of “respectable” society because of their sexual orientation or for whatever reason—are not receiving full protection under the law, the solution is simple: Make the police and the judges obey the law, and when they fail, punish them for failing in their duty. But putting additional penalties based on the thoughts of the criminal or the identity of the victim is wrong. Humans are humans, all deserving of the same treatment before the law, no more and no less.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
1. So you’re against the distinction between first and second degree murder — a distinction that can easily be based in nothing more than “the thoughts of the criminal”?
2. Please don’t bring up the “penalties… based on… the identity of the victim” nonsense. That’s not how hate crimes statutes work; it’s just a strawman argument.
3. Using murder as your example is a way of hiding the weakness of your argument, because obviously the penalty for murder is generally sufficient without adding anything on at all.
Instead, consider the example of Joe and Bill. Joe trespasses on my property and lights a campfire because he’s hungry and wants to cook a hot dog. Bill trespasses on Rabbi Rosenburg’s property and sets a cross on fire because he wants all the Jews of the community to feel under threat of being violently attacked so they’ll move out.
In your view, are these the same crimes, deserving exactly the same penalty?
If we give Joe and Bill (assuming both are found guilty in a fair court of law) exactly the same penalty, is that just, in your view?
Let’s say Joe’s penalty is a $50 fine for trespassing. If we also penalize Bill with a $50 penalty, do you think that will provide Bill with any incentive to not commit the same crime again? Do you think the Jewish community would be wrong to feel that the law is failing to protect them?
Or let’s say that we give Bill six months in jail and a $5000 fine. Is it fair to give Joe six months in jail and a $5000 fine for trespassing?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:15 am
will, are you actually making those arguments? Observing that they “could be made” is an odd way of pre-distancing yourself–hey, these may be crazy, but somebody COULD make them, um, but it’s not me.
Do you believe there is no difference between the person in line who accidentally spills his Coke on you, and the person who deliberately spills his Coke on you? Exact same actions; the only different is the person’s “thoughts”.
“Murder,” by the way, is a crime where we look at the killer’s intent. You know, “thoughts.” Do you oppose that? Should any killing of another human being by a human being be murder?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Ampersand, I believe the courts should have leeway in charging and sentencing. If findlaw.com is to be trusted, the distinctions between first and second degree murder have to do with the amount of premeditation. They have nothing to do with the nature of the premeditation. That’s where “hate crime” enters the equation: it sets additional penalties for the motive.
As for Joe and Bill’s case, Joe’s situation is arguably a crime of necessity, while Bill’s is wanton trespass and destruction. But to go further with your hypothesis, if Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn and on a black person’s law, should he face a greater charge for the second case?
Or to take a personal example: my family couldn’t get fire insurance because the Klan had put out the word that we would be burned down. If the Klan had followed through, should they have faced a lesser charge for burning our home than if they had burned the home of a black family?
mythago, I’m trying to point out that a lot of approaches can be taken regarding the law, and once you begin to dwell on different kinds of premeditation rather than the deed, you’re entering a moral thicket that troubles me.
The law has always recognized premeditation, and that’s appropriate. Recognizing the difference between “sane” crimes that result in personal profit and insane crimes that are driven by a mania is appropriate.
But really, when it comes to murder, “Thou shalt not kill” covers it pretty well. If the judges and police are not enforcing the law for everyone, the solution is to charge them with dereliction; it’s not to make more laws.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am
But to go further with your hypothesis, if Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn and on a black person’s law, should he face a greater charge for the second case?
If Bill burns a cross on a white person’s lawn because Bill thinks the white person is a “nigger-lover” and the cross-burning will intimidate that white person into moving away? That would be a hate crime.
What you’re refusing to acknowledge is that the law takes motive into account–not just “premeditation”. The very definition of murder–the example you keep using–is one that takes a person’s thoughts into account.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
mythago, I also addressed arson; I really don’t insist on sticking to murder. So let’s stick to the cross-burning: that’s trespass and vandalism, and it should be punished on those grounds.
Yes, “premeditation” acknowledges intent. But in the past, the law took premeditation in two directions: did you have a “sane” motive that would result in gain as society understands gain, or did you have an insane motive, and therefore you should go to a mental facility rather than a legal one. That’s always seemed proper to me. Hate crimes add an extra consideration: Was prejudice a factor in the premeditation?
And now you’re judging people’s thoughts. Now you’re a tiny, tiny step from saying that speech and thought should be regulated independently of actions. If you want to make everyone equal under the law, the most powerful way to do that is to insist that everyone is equal under the law, and to punish judges and police officers who show any favoritism.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
will, I really don’t know how many ways there are to repeat this.
1. The law has always taken motive, i.e. “thoughts”, into account in judging the severity of crimes.
2. Only a tiny handful of ’strict liability’ crimes (such as statutory rape) completely ignore the perpetrator’s intent.
3. Hate crimes do not protect particular people (i.e. African-Americans); they do apply to categories (such as race) and apply to any victim to whom the crime is directed based on their perceived characteristics.
Your claim that the law suddenly started considering “insane motives” is flat-out wrong. Your claim that applying mens rea to hate crimes is Orwellian thoughtcrime is also flat-out wrong. I’d be happy to explain why, but I don’t get the impression that you wish to be confused with the facts.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Mythago,
Yes, the law considers motives, but “hate crimes” subdivide motives. Here’s what the law traditionally decides: Did you do it? By the standards of our society, are you sane? Was this act premeditated or impulsive or accidental?
I didn’t claim that the law suddenly began to consider insanity as a defense; I should look up when insanity was first offered as a factor in deciding legal responsibility.
You may be correct that I don’t wish to be confused with facts. I think I don’t wish to be confused with ideology. I don’t want the law to discriminate for anyone, and I don’t want it to discriminate against anyone. I want it to be fair.
Well, that’s probably my last shot at explaining this. Just remember that our goals are, I hope, the same: a world in which everyone is treated equally. Your approach may be right, but I think it’s not; your approach focuses on differences, and mine focuses on similarities.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
As I said back in comment #14, Will:
I thought it then, and I think it now. A hate crime does extra damage in terms of fear and impact on the community.
In terms of arson, for example, I think that there’s a very different damage in the harm done between someone who sets fire to my house because he hates me personally and someone who sets fire to my house because he wants to ’send a message’ and scare people like me out of town.
In the first case, I am the victim.
In the second case, I am not the only victim. Everyone else in town who is a ‘person like me’ is being deliberately terrorized. The kid who’s scared to go to school is a victim. The parents who are frightened to go to sleep or leave the kids home alone are victims. The family who feels like they have to move away to find peace are victims.
If you commit a greater crime, affecting more people, you get punished more.
I’ve got no problem with that, and it doesn’t come even close to thoughtcrime.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Myca, what’s the more powerful message: “Everyone gets the same treatment” or “Everyone gets the same treatment, including those who are different, and therefore we’ll have additional laws regarding the people who are different”? I think it’s the first.
Here’s one problem with the “greater crime” argument: If you’re basing it on its effect on society, a typical act of arson is meant to terrorize everyone; a targeted act is meant to terrorize a subgroup. By the logic of “greater crime”, the targeted act should be considered a lesser crime.
Which is clearly wrong.
Because everyone should be treated equally, and should demand it when it doesn’t happen.
So the solution is to treat everyone equally. (Which, perhaps, I take to extremes, being a leveler, but I really don’t see how you can go too far in the pursuit of fairness.)
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I think justice is more important than soundbites, actually.
Plus, hey, as others have pointed out many times, this treatment applies to everyone. Everyone is treated equally. If someone commits arson against me with the clear intent of driving ‘people like me’ out of town, it doesn’t matter to the law whether I’m black or white, gay or straight, etc.
An act intended to terrorize my community is not the same as an act designed to affect me personally, and treating different acts differently is not unfair.
This is probably not true, as near as I can tell.
Do you honestly believe that most cases of arson (or murder or mugging) have the intent of creating an atmosphere of fear for literally everyone? I would think it much more common that these acts are committed due to personal animus or some kind of profit motive.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Will, what do you mean by “treat everyone equally”? You clearly don’t mean that literally, since you don’t call for punishing the criminal and the innocent equally.
If you mean “treat everyone equally” meaning treat black and white the same, women and men the same, queer and non-queer the same, etc., then hate crime laws already do that.
So what do you mean?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Will, do you honestly think a warehouse fire (a relatively common type of arson, which newspapers barely even bother writing about) typically spreads fear to everyone to the same degree and kind that burning down a synagogue typically spreads fear to members of the local Jewish community?
Because if you honestly can’t imagine ANY WAY that the latter example might create more fear among its targets than a warehouse fire creates among the community-in-general, then I frankly can’t see any point in continuing this discussion with you; you’re the equivalent of someone who doesn’t believe in evolution, in that you simply have no connection to or awareness of the real world.
However, I trust that you don’t honestly believe that, and that you mis-typed, or made your point too quickly in the rush of debate. (Both mistakes that I’d find very understandable, having made them all too often myself). I don’t think that you’re that disconnected from reality. Please justify my faith in you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
You can go too far in the pursuit of fairness when you start to treat starkly different crimes as if they are not.
Hm.
Let me put it this way.
Let’s take the crime of rape. Ignoring hate crime statutes, ‘who the victim is’ is hugely important in prosecuting a case of rape. Whether a rapist rapes a woman in her 30’s, a girl who is 16, or a child of 2 years old generally makes the same act (sexual intercourse without consent) carry radically different penalties and charges.
Is this a case of treating different people unequally?
I mean, it’s the same crime, right?
No, it’s not the same crime. This isn’t unequal. This is a case of recognizing nuance.
My action may be ‘punching someone in the face’, but whether my punchee is an 80 year old man, a 30 year old man, or a 6 month old infant matters. These are different crimes, and punishing them equally isn’t ‘fair’.
My action may be ‘breaking a bunch of windows at the high school and spraypainting the lockers’, but whether I paint, “Kiss Rocks!” (why would anyone want to kiss rocks?), or “Die Jews” matters. These are different crimes, and punishing them equally isn’t ‘fair’.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“Do you honestly believe that most cases of arson (or murder or mugging) have the intent of creating an atmosphere of fear for literally everyone? I would think it much more common that these acts are committed due to personal animus or some kind of profit motive.”
Profit is the most common motive for arson. But when you’re dealing with other examples, you tend to have troubled young people, usually male, who have anger issues and, often, a low IQ. I don’t know if Malcolm Shabazz, whose arson killed Betty Shabazz, fit the second half of that diagnosis, but he certainly had a troubled history.
Not-for-profit arson tends to be a public act by someone who feels powerless.
“Will, what do you mean by “treat everyone equally”? You clearly don’t mean that literally, since you don’t call for punishing the criminal and the innocent equally.”
I mean that your deed should be judged, not your thought. I can’t tell someone to stop being racist. But if someone robs or assaults or kills someone, I fully expect them to face the full legal consequences of robbery or assault or murder.
“Will, do you honestly think a warehouse fire (a relatively common type of arson, which newspapers barely even bother writing about) typically spreads fear to everyone to the same degree and kind that burning down a synagogue typically spreads fear to members of the local Jewish community?”
I was thinking about burning houses and forests and public buildings,—not about for-profit arson.
I am *NOT* arguing that general arson should be treated differently than targeted arson. I’m arguing that arson is wrong in every case, and legally sane arsonists should go to prison, and legally insane arsonists should go asylums.
“whether my punchee is an 80 year old man, a 30 year old man, or a 6 month old infant matters.”
I started to agree, but now I’m not so sure. Isn’t the damage what’s relevant? A broken nose is a broken nose. If the perceived strength of the victim is relevant, should gender also be a consideration? I personally feel that it’s much worse to hit a woman than a man, but I do have a macho protectionist streak, and I can see the argument that a woman who wants equal protection should want as much but no more protection than a man would get.
As for “Kiss rocks!” and “Die Jews!” I entirely agree that the first is sad and the second is vile. But not everything that’s vile should be addressed with the law. When vandalism incorporates free speech, we should punish the vandalism with the law. The free speech should be addressed with more free speech.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Will,
Once again, you appear to be denying that there exist things like systemic racism and that they affect people lives in a negative fashion that needs to be addressed. You seem to be invested in the idea that you, as a ‘poor’ white man (although you have a great deal of cultural capitol), are equally oppressed as a poor black woman who has no cltural capitol.
I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I really think you’re stuck on this one.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Mondolin, the question isn’t whether racism continues—Jena answers that clearly. The question is how do you address it? I think all problems should be solved in their greater context. Black poverty? End poverty for everyone, including the 25% who are Hispanic and the 50% who are white. Homophobia? Grant everyone the same freedom in consensual matters, whether they’re GLBT or polyamorous. Etc.
I think we differ on a second issue, too. I don’t want more laws permitting things. I want fewer laws forbidding things. Doesn’t mean I’m an anarchist (though it does mean I have strong anarchist sympathies). Just means I have less faith in using the law to solve social problems.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Two comments, Will.
You said:
But first you said:
I agree. The damage is what’s relevant.
Sometimes the damage is so likely to be different (as in the difference between punching a full grown man and an infant or the difference between raping a full grown woman and a toddler) that we count it as another crime.
What I (and many others) have been saying is that a crime that targets a specific group with the intent of creating terror does more damage than the same ‘action’ without that goal.
Breaking into a school and spraypainting either “Kiss Rocks” or “Die Jews” is not free speech. Both are vandalism, and the second does more damage. Since it does more damage, I have no problem with punishing it more harshly. As you said, the damage is what’s relevant.
Walking down the street and shouting either “Kiss Rocks” or “Die Jews” is free speech. Neither is a crime. I am opposed to criminalization of either one.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Myca,when you start setting different standards for things, even based on obvious things like age, you inevitably end up with situations like the Genarlow Wilson case. Why should an adult woman get less legal protection than a girl or an infant? The act is wrong in every case. I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that a woman is better equipped mentally to deal with the consequences than a child and therefore the legal punishment for raping her should be less—she probably is better able to deal with rape, but that’s beside the point. Rape is rape, and the message for raping anyone should be simple: our society will not accept rape under any circumstances.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
So then, you don’t believe that damage done should be the standard?
Punching an infant is far more likely to do a deadly injury than punching an adult. Raping a child is (in most cases) going to do far more physical and emotional damage than raping an adult.
Our legal system takes that into account.
The problem with judging a crime based solely on the action, rather than its damage or impact on the world is that the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place.
I mean, “How dare you treat me so unfairly! I was just shooting my gun, something that hundreds of people do every day while hunting or at the target range! Clearly, the fact that I was at the mall is immaterial. I mean, do you want to give ‘people who go to the mall’ special protection over others? That would be soo unfair . . . ”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place.”
People have rationalized doing horrible things in many, many ways. Some say pornography drove them, and some say God or the Devil made them do something that was wrong.
And what was wrong was that they did the wrong thing. Whether God or the Devil, pornography or racism, was in their minds when they acted is irrelevant. The deed is wrong.
The horrible thing about our legal system during the age of “separate, but (not really) equal” was that the laws were not applied equally. The solution is not to create more laws. It’s to apply the laws equally.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Yes, Will, I think we all get that. Nobody here (except you) is talking about criminalizing thoughts. We’re talking about different punishments for different actions with different impacts.
We are saying is that this is a different act.
Spraying spraypaint on a canvas at your home is one act.
It’s not unfair to treat it differently from spraying spraypaint on the pavement to make a beautiful flower . . . because that’s a different act.
And it’s not unfair to treat that differently from spraying spraypaint on the side of a public building to write an obscenity . . . because that’s a different act.
And it’s not unfair to treat that differently from spraying spraypaint on a private citizen’s home to write a racial slur . . . because that’s a different act.
Your vision of fairness seems to involve wanting to pretend that there’s no difference between all of these.
None of these (not one) involves thoughtcrime or reading the perpetrator’s mind or criminalizing racism or anything like that. It’s entirely possible that the fellow painting the flower on the street was horribly racist . . . but as long as his actions didn’t specifically terrorize one racial group, there’s no problem.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Additionally, Will, I’m not sure why you quoted me saying “the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place,” . . . and went on to talk at length about people’s motivations, which was utterly unrelated.
I’m saying that for me, motivations aren’t the point. Damage is the point. damage is what makes a crime a crime, and it’s what separates a smaller crime from a greater.
And actions that terrorize and target a specific group do more damage.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“Your vision of fairness seems to involve wanting to pretend that there’s no difference between all of these.”
I’d like to think my vision of fairness involves giving the government very little room to impose penalties based on what people think or say.
“Additionally, Will, I’m not sure why you quoted me saying “the damage is the only reason it’s a crime in the first place,” . . . and went on to talk at length about people’s motivations, which was utterly unrelated.”
Sorry! I often get much too terse in these discussions. I thought you were saying that prejudice was the reason for the crime, and therefore it was pertinent. I was trying to point out that there are many reasons for crimes, but what matters is the crime, not the reason–beyond determining sanity and premeditation, of course.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
No, no, what I mean is :
1) The fact that a crime does damage is the only reason it’s considered a crime in the first place.
2) How much damage the crime does affects how serious we consider the crime to be.
3) Targeting a specific group for the purpose of inflicting terror while committing a crime does more damage than the same sort of crime (assault, rape, vandalism) without that element.
Therefore:
4) Assessing an additional penalty on the perpetrator of a crime due to the additional damage is wholly appropriate.
Important Point
This isn’t extra protection for anyone. If I go out and beat up a dude and steal his wallet, and he happens to be gay, I don’t get charged any differently than if he happens to be straight. So there’s no extra protection there.
On other other hand, if I go out and beat up a dude and steal his wallet while screaming racial epithets, it doesn’t matter what his race is . . . I can be charged with a hate crime. So there’s no extra protection there, either.
I’m not sure where you get the ‘extra protection’ and ‘unfairness’ from, really.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Myca, it’s in the “screaming racial epithets.” I hate being called names as much as anyone, but I don’t think it should be illegal to call me names. (Slander law is a whole ‘nother topic that we should stay away from now!)
And it’s especially in the judgment calls involved with cases like the Christian-Newsom murders and the woman tortured in the Brewster trailer. Seems to me the police don’t need to spend extra time investigating the thoughts of the attackers. What they did was horrible enough, and the sentence will reflect that. Adding extra penalties doesn’t make a stronger statement than the basic one: The victims deserve the protection of the law, and the attackers deserve its undiluted judgment.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Okay, so you don’t think it should be illegal to call you names.
That’s cool, and let’s talk about that, but first can you either 1) agree that under this framework, nobody has ‘extra protection’ or 2) show where that extra protection is?
As near as I can tell, we’re all equally protected. If a group of Asian toughs beat the crap out of me while screaming anti-white epithets, I’m just as protected as an Asian dude beat up by a group of white guys screaming anti-Asian epithets.
I’d just like to get this out of the way before we get to what seems to be the meat of the matter.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Myca, I’m curious about the statistics on hate crimes and whether they’re applied equally. For example, blacks are about 10% of the population, and whites are 68% or 75%, depending on whether you include people who identify as “white Hispanics.” So, are 10% of hate crimes against whites and 75% against blacks?
Now, that doesn’t factor in class. For things that exclusively affect the lower class, the numbers become effectively 25% black, 25% Hispanic, and 50% white. Apply that against the death penalty and against the drug war, and it becomes pretty clear that the death penalty is not racist, but the drug war is. So if hate crimes are primarily a lower-class phenomenon, the statistics should reflect that.
Okay, having typed the above, I went googling. The first useful site is here; it’s the FBI figures. At the end of the page is this: “Among the 8,433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. The remaining offenders were of other or multi-racial groups.” The statistics line up fairly well with the figures for the US’s lower-class (the death penalty also shows a higher percentage of of both blacks and whites due to a lower percentage of Hispanics).
Now, violent crime stats tend to focus on the lower class because people with money tend to pay lawyers rather than go to jail, so I’m guessing that applies here, though I don’t know. So, if all those assumptions are correct, I would conclude that you’re right, the hate crime laws are applied fairly.
But, as with the death penalty, being applied fairly doesn’t make it right.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Excellent, thanks.
Now earlier, back in post #43, you said that you oppose hate crime laws partially because you don’t think it should be illegal to yell racial epithets at you.
Is it your understanding that under hate crime laws, I could be arrested or fined for yelling a racial epithet at someone? If so, I think you’re mistaken.
Indeed, it is my understanding that hate crime statutes merely treat the terrorization of a group as an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime.
I think of it like possession of a deadly weapon. It’s not illegal for me to carry a knife. There are no laws making possession of a knife illegal. However, if I commit assault, and I do so with something that is, on its own, legal (a knife) the crime is considered more serious.
It’s considered more serious because assault with a deadly weapon does more damage than assault without.
Similarly, assault with the intent of terrorizing a specific group of people does more damage than assault without.
So . . . good news! You don’t need to worry about hate crime legislation making racial epithets illegal any more than you worry about assault with a deadly weapon making your kitchen knives illegal.
Are you still opposed to these laws? If so, why?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
You’re granting my assumptions about those statistics!?! I’m not sure I would! (*g*)
No, I don’t think someone can be arrested for yelling any epithets at me. Not my point. I meant that purely as an analogy. I was trying to point out that free speech and free thought are extremely important to me, no matter how distasteful I might find some of the things they allow.
My point is that by adding a hate crime law to an objective crime, you’re adding to the penalty based on your interpretation of the motive for the crime. Sometimes sports fans attack people who are wearing the opposing team’s shirt. Is that different than attacking someone wearing their team’s shirt? It’s still an attack. The damage is the same. An argument could be made that Britain should have soccer hooligan laws (and for all I know, they do), because prejudice is a factor in team-oriented crimes, just as it’s a factor when Crips and Bloods fight. But I would argue against those laws, too. What matters is the crime, not the prejudice. Prejudice is reprehensible. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I agree, but prejudice isn’t illegal, and these laws don’t make it illegal.
You (Or anyone. Not picking on you) can be just as prejudiced as you like. You can run anti-Arsenal websites from your basement, posting your angry soccer-hooligan screeds late into the night.
However, if you go out and beat up an Arsenal fan and spraypaint across the front door of his house “This is a Tottenham neighborhood” or something similar, then your attack has a greater impact than if you’d just beat him up. It does more damage just as surely as if (but in a different way than if) you’d attacked him with a knife.
Once again, this is about the damage the crime does. These crimes do more damage, and acknowledging that and punishing for that is not unreasonable.
Let me put it this way: Do you believe that concentrated campaigns of harassment meant to terrify an entire group of people should be legal? Assume that the crimes themselves will be minor . . . just some minor vandalism . . . a few windows broken a night, a few spraypainted messages, a ‘Die Jew’ here, a ‘we’re watching you’ there . . . that kind of thing.
This victimizes not just the families whose homes are targeted, but all Jewish people living in the area . . . in fact, of course it does. That’s the whole point. The goal is to create an atmosphere of fear, where members of the targeted group either leave or live in terror.
Do you believe that that should be legal?
If you oppose hate crime legislation, the answer must be yes.
What you are saying is, “we’ll fine you for the broken windows and make you clean up the spraypaint . . . but the intimidation? That should be legal.”
I believe that the damage these crimes do obviously and clearly goes beyond the physical damage of the vandalism. Do you disagree?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Myca, this really is where we disagree. I’m still at punish the objective crime. I would like to think that if the graffitti is especially hateful, people would try especially hard to catch those responsible. If Jewish homes are being targeted for window-breaking, then the police should be watching Jewish homes in hope of catching the window-breakers. Neighbors should rally and say loudly, “These are our friends and neighbors! We support them!”
There is a negative side of hate crimes that I first saw when looking at Germany’s laws against Nazi symbols: ban something, and you make it more powerful. You give it the allure of the forbidden. You help the people who are acting on their prejudices believe that they are delivering a message which a repressive society has forbidden. I think the more effective response from society is, “That’s what you think? We value free thought, so you’re allowed to think it, but, man, we all think people who believe that are pathetic.”
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 5:51 am
So you believe that a boy breaking a window tossing rocks and an organized campaign of terror ought to be prosecuted as equivalent.
Do you also oppose extra penalties for assault with a deadly weapon because that makes weapons ‘more powerful’? Do you oppose extra penalties for premeditated murder because that makes planners ‘more powerful’?
My point is that if you prosecute a crime doing damage ‘X’ at level ‘Y’ . . . and you prosecute a crime doing damage ‘X plus 10′ at level ‘Y’ . . . then the ‘plus 10′ is effectively legal.
If there’s no extra penalty for using a knife, why not use a knife? The crime will be prosecuted as if you punched him.
If there’s no extra penalty for killing a dude, why not kill him? The crime will be prosecuted as if you stabbed him.
If there’s no extra penalty for running someone over while drunk, why be careful? The crime will be prosecuted as if it was a simple DUI.
Tell me, which other crimes do you oppose aggravating factors for?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Myca, assault with a deadly weapon shows a greater disregard for life. It is a law that’s applied imperfectly–fists and feet are deadly weapons–but at least it is somewhat objective.
Premeditation has nothing to do with the reason why you planned something. It only acknowledges that the wrong thing was intended, and you had time to reconsider it, but you acted anyway.
I believe we should have as few laws as possible, and they should be as objective as possible, based on deeds and the desire to do wrong. When you add hate crimes to the mix, you’re now prosecuting people on the reason for their desire to do wrong. And that’s wrong. People should be allowed to have any stupid desire they want—you should only punish them for acting on their stupid desires.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:04 am
You’ve said this sort of thing several times, hinting that hate crime laws allow people to be punished for their thoughts rather than their actions.
Here are a couple more examples:
I would like you to offer an example of:
1) A situation where, under hate crime statutes, someone would be punished for “having a stupid desire” rather than “acting on the stupid desire”,
2) A situation where, under hate crime statutes, prejudice, on its own, would be made illegal,
3) A situation where calling you names, on its own, would be made illegal.
Please either do this or drop the rhetoric.
It’s not true, and you I think know it’s not true.
We can keep going back through your statements to dig this stuff out if you like.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of a hate crime law to charge someone with a hate crime, so the likely penalty will be more severe than if you simply charged them for the objective crime? So aren’t all hate crimes examples of punishing people for having stupid desires rather than acting on them?
To clarify that a bit, perhaps: Can you give an example of a hate crime that is not already a crime like robbery, assault, trespassing, vandalism, or murder?
I’m not saying that hate crimes currently make prejudice illegal. I’m saying that hate crimes add the charge of prejudice to the crime. And that’s both wrong in itself and it establishes a very dangerous precedent.
And, really, the calling me names thing was just an example of something I hate (in a few examples–most name-calling amuse mes). The only point I intended to make was that if you make everything you hate illegal, the law only makes sense to kings. In a free society, things you hate that do not cause objective harm should be free. That definitely includes speech and thought.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. I find it interesting to view it as a group guilt issue.
What are the chances that you were beating him up because he was gay, instead of because he wore the wrong color sneakers?
Obviously society is believed to be fairly anti-gay and as we all know that often includes violence. However, gays are not generally believed to be violently anti-straight.
Because of that TRUE societal issue, the state will have an easier time proving that charge against you. Because of the TRUE societal issue, the state will have a harder time proving that charge against him.
Result: hate crime legislation punishes you more than he. On average, anyway.
I haven’t gotten in a fight since junior high, I think. And I’ve never beaten someone up. But if I was for some reason in a situation where me and another person were trying to remove each others’ teeth using our fists, then I am not sure what would come out of my mouth. It would probably be the most vile, insulting, horrible, thing I could think of. He would probably be doing the same thing.
Again, because of our society’s history, it is more likely that my insults could be construed as motivation for a “hate crime” than could his. Same result as above.
Another way to look at it is this: Some liberals believe there is no “reverse racism.” Still others make the claim that comments on clothing, music preference, economic status, geographical location, and language choice are all considered racist.
This is combined with the reverse racism issue. Thus, insulting hop hop artists, or denigrating those who listen to hip hop (which I like, BTW), is often equated to racism. Substitute “classical music” or “country western” and it’s not considered racist. Similar examples abound: insulting baggy-pants wearers is racist and anti-minority, and insulting $3000-custom-tailored-English-suit-wearers is not, even though the vast majority of such folks are white. And so on.
I don’t know how those perceptions will be included in hate crime legislation. Do you?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“if I was for some reason in a situation where me and another person were trying to remove each others’ teeth using our fists, then I am not sure what would come out of my mouth. It would probably be the most vile, insulting, horrible, thing I could think of. He would probably be doing the same thing.”
I have been in fights as an adult. Not recently, but well into my late 20s-early 30s (no, I didn’t start them: I was attacked on more than one occasion for not being sufficiently “feminine”—which, now that I think about it, is right on track with this conversation). Anyway, although hateful, vile things undoubtedly did come out of my mouth, they were always of the “asshole/fucker/shithead” variety and NEVER of the racist/bigoted variety, even though at times they could have been IF I HAD BEEN SO INCLINED.
I do not buy the idea that someone who “isn’t really racist” would come out with racial epithets in a fight. Only people who say they aren’t racist but haven’t dealt with the bad stuff they’ve got internally. And anyway, this whole tack the conversation is having is a blind: it reminds me of all those anti-rape threads where men come on to make arguments that are basically trying to set the limits for the violence/sexual abuse they will be “permitted” to make without it being called rape. Just fucking don’t do ANY of it.
Will: you have not managed to make any substantive refutation of Myca’s (or anyone else’s) position. Assaulting someone for their race/sexual orientation/whatever is DIFFERENT than assaulting someone because you think they’ve wronged you, or assaulting someone because you’re drunk. Burning down a synagogue is DIFFERENT than burning down a warehouse for the insurance or even burning down your school for fun.
The law takes intent into account all the time. The law takes the impact of actions into account all the time. Hate crime legislation IS NO DIFFERENT. It is not legislating against “thought crime,” it is not giving some groups “special rights” (and anyway, if YOUR group didn’t have special rights in the first place, there’d be no need hate crime legislation). All it’s doing is recognising that crimes committed for the purpose of creating fear and insecurity across a specific group of people are DIFFERENT to crimes that are committed out of personal animosity towards individuals or for a profit motive, etc. Exactly like the law takes into account that shooting someone dead unintentionally while playing around with a gun is DIFFERENT to getting a gun, planning to shoot someone, and then killing them.
Do you think that everyone who kills another person, no matter whether it was by accident, for profit or for the sadistic pleasure of killing, should be treated exactly the same by the law? Because unless you do, your argument against hate crimes legislation holds no water.
“insulting hop hop artists, or denigrating those who listen to hip hop (which I like, BTW), is often equated to racism. Substitute “classical music” or “country western” and it’s not considered racist.”
Firstly, though I don’t doubt that there are people so ignorant that they would automatically equate not liking hip-hop to racism, those people would be fringe loonies, so presenting their views as if they were some sort of norm isn’t valid. They aren’t. Secondly, there is a vast difference between saying that some individuals reject hip-hop out of hand for racist reasons, or that some analyses of hip-hop are racist, and saying that not liking hip-hop is in itself racist.
Also, as C&W and classical music are culturally identified as “white” genres (even though their musicians and admirers span all racial groups), and white is dominant and sees itself as the default, saying that not liking those 2 genres could be tied to racism wouldn’t even really make sense, at least not in a white-dominated culture.
However, a lot of the analyses about C&W and a lot of the negative responses individuals have towards it are definitely classist. Again, this is NOT saying that anyone who doesn’t like country dislikes it for classist reasons, merely that some people are classist in their rejection of it.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Crys T, I agree those things are different. That doesn’t justify giving the state the power to penalize what you believe when you choose to act illegally on your beliefs.
I think you were reading hastily (it’s a long thread!), because I addressed some of your other points earlier. Perhaps the biggest one bears repeating: premeditation has nothing to do with motive; it only has to do with whether you planned to act illegally.
The quote after what’s addressed to me was Sailorman’s, not mine. I do agree that the objections to C&W are mostly classist. I think a similar argument could be made for hip hop and other musical forms that come from poor blacks—though race remains a factor there, of course, and you also get to add prejudice against the young to the mix.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I ‘ll try one more time:
I can easily buy into the concept of necessity. I.e. that we need to protect minorities (of all types) who are persecuted, and that we need to enact laws to do it; that the laws will have a net benefit even if they are not perfect. No law is perfect.
So in a funny way, i have little trouble with the response “so what if it punishes thoughts (or something else); the benefits are worth it.”
But.
But what I know of the law, and what I learned in school, and discussed with my friends who are lawyers… well, it makes me nervous. I can’t seem to explain it worth a damn, which represents either that it’s too difficult to get without a large base of knowledge (unlikely) or that i’m doing a piss poor job explaining it (likely.)
I suppose I look at terrorism, and sedition, and hate crimes, and all of those crimes which we occasionally write to try to stop behavior that we don’t want. And which the government enacts. And which the government prosecutes.
And.. I dunno. I just don’t trust the government that much. As someone who works with the law, it seems to be so obvious that any law can be twisted in a way that we don’t like, whether or not I happen to be able to put my finger on it now. You rarely find loopholes in advance.
So you see “new mechanism to stop hate acts.” I see “whole new door opening up here, to start charging people who the government doesn’t like.” And I mean a whole new door quite literally, including evidence of a type which would NEVER normally come out in a criminal trial… that’s what we’re letting the government get into.
Some people here seem to think that hate crimes are sort of a solution to racial profiling, and the patriot act, and anti-terrorism stuff. I look at it and I see part and parcel of the same thing. It’s another category of crime; another area of your life that the government gets toy use when deciding whether or not to jail you.
I’d have no trouble with this as a CIVIL action. And maybe you’re all right–maybe, somehow, this is really a good thing. But it makes me very, very, nervous.
I don’t especially like the treatment of minority groups in this country. But I am more concerned with the government.
[shrug] so we’ll have to agree to disagree, I think. Perhaps you’re right; I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
But what I know of the law, and what I learned in school, and discussed with my friends who are lawyers… well, it makes me nervous.
Fercrissakes.
I am a lawyer. And one of the first things your lawyer friends should remember, if they paid any attention in law school, are concepts like mens rea and intent, which we do apply to criminal law and always have. They would have learned that the common-law definition of murder is “killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought”. They would have had exam questions about general-intent and specific-intent crimes, and about ’strict liability’ crimes where no ill intent is needed.
If you really don’t trust the government at all, then let’s just abolish all criminal law, shall we? Because there’s no point in saying, why yes, I trust prosecutors to prove that somebody intentionally rather than accidentally shot their spouse; I’m happy having laws on the books that say there is a difference between causing somebody’s death carelessly and doing so deliberately; but when it comes to the ONE motivation of committing a crime because you hate a particular group your victim belongs to–why, we can’t trust the government to do that.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
mythago, I am not a lawyer, but I can look up mens rea and discover that it addresses the intent to commit a criminal act. It does not address the reasoning behind the intent. Cornell Law School’s definition is good, but I like nolo.com’s better; it’s here.
And we really don’t have to choose between an all-powerful government and a nonexistent one. We can choose one that has clear bounds on what it can control. That’s much of the reason I love democracy.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
will, first of all, do you dispute that vandalism as part of a campaign of harassment and intimidation does more harm than that done by a preteen trying to impress his friends? Forget about legal repercussions, the law, the proper role of government, and all that. Would you agree, in the most detached sense, that one does more objective harm than the other? I don’t think it’s possible to go anywhere until this is answered.
“Because of that TRUE societal issue, the state will have an easier time proving that charge against you. Because of the TRUE societal issue, the state will have a harder time proving that charge against him.”
In other words, the justice system may be biased from preconceived notions and built in assumptions. Huh? The state will have an easier time prosecuting a black suspect than a white one for most crimes. Ergo, most crimes should be legal? Or state enforcement against most crimes is on ’shaky ground’, or something?
Given how aggressive prosecutors are allowed to be in this country, how criminal defense generally has inferior or less motivated staff, how jailing innocents is an acceptable sacrifice to be Tuff on Crime, I do worry about situations where a man’s racist rants on his blog could potentially be spun into an added hate crime conviction. Then again, the entire legal system suffers from similar problems.
A lot of will and Sailorman’s objections appear to be grounded in the fact that hate crime legislation gives the state ‘new’ powers. Notice that this was will’s only defense against the analogy to mens rea - ‘the law has ALWAYS recognized intent, premeditation’, etc. etc. What, can the law never change? If expansion of the law is what worries you, what aspects of counterterrorism law, or intellectual property law, do you think have been significantly expanded since ‘hate crimes’ were first designated? Both have intruded more into citizens’ privacy. Both have the potential to be much more damaging to citizens’ privacy. And given how easy it is to jump off the TWOT bandwagon these days, I want all responses to be made against the latter only.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
sylphhead, if one act is done by a minor and one is done by an adult, I’m content to conclude that the minor gets the benefit of the doubt. But otherwise, a brick through a window is a brick through a window, and the law should deal with it as a brick through a window. Doesn’t matter if the target is someone who is seen as “different” or seen as “authority” or is simply convenient. Address the deed. The statement to society should be “This deed is not tolerated.” There’s no reason to say, “This deed is *especially* not tolerated under certain circumstances.” It simply shouldn’t be tolerated. Period.
The quote after your first paragraph is from sailorman, not me.
I do worry about the expansion of the government’s powers. I don’t like the “Patriot” Act. I don’t like the Mickey Mouse copyright extension law. I don’t like the neocon love of intrusive government. But those are outside this discussion. When you say that “new powers” are my only “defense against the analogy to mens rea,” you’re wrong. I have at least two objections: I don’t like adding additional penalties to things that are already crimes, and I believe the analogy to mens rea is simply wrong. “Hate crimes” add a new layer of consideration to the considerations that already go into mens rea.
Probably time to bow out on this one, though. I fear we’re just repeating arguments.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
To Will Shetterly: Since when does a heterosexual man have to worry about being beaten to death by a bunch of snarling hatful gay men? If there is a distinguishing difference between who has worry more about being attacked and who doesn’t then it would seem to me that there needs to be a legal protection that makes that simple discernment.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Julie, murder is murder, and murder should be punished. The problem in the past was that not everyone would receive equal justice in every place. The solution is to make sure that everyone does receive equal justice. And you don’t create equal justice by adding extra penalties to some crimes.
A specific example: In 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered. Two were white, and one was black. Should the charge of a hate crime have been added to the murder of the black man, but not to the whites? Racism was clearly a factor. The murderers were white, so killing the white men does not fit the traditional definition of a hate crime.
I think the right thing to do is to charge the murderers with murder.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 6:51 am
mythago, I am not a lawyer, but I can look up mens rea and discover that it addresses the intent to commit a criminal act.
In other words, the law already recognizes “thoughts” as something that is considered in the nature and severity of a crime. That is why there is a difference between degrees of homicide–you keep throwing out “murder” without any apparent awareness of that fact.
But otherwise, a brick through a window is a brick through a window, and the law should deal with it as a brick through a window.
Do you realize that you are actually advocating a radical change in the law, not merely suggesting we keep things as they are? It is not currently the law, hate crimes or no, that “a brick through a window is a brick through a window”.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Will, when you wrote this:
It was not a meaningful response to sylphhead’s question:
Pay special attention the the bolded section (bolding added by me), and please answer the question.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:18 am
mythago, I’ll happily get into degrees of homicide if you wish. The degree I object to the very intimate one of judging the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation or the victim. All humans are created equal, and the law should reflect that.
And I did mean my “brick through a window” example to be read in light of the other things I have said: the court should judge whether the act was premeditated, impulsive, insane, accidental, and committed by a legal adult. I believe judges should be free to judge, so other factors like brutality should be considered. But the law should not discriminate on the basis of the victim: all humans are equal, and the law should reflect that.
Would you care to answer my question about the 1964 civil rights workers? Should there have been a different charge for murdering the black worker, or are he and the two white workers equal?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Will, going with the murder analogy for a moment, there are at least four different crimes I can think of based on the same ‘brick through the window’-type action. (I’m sure Mythago will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is right)
Let’s say two guys fight, Guy A beats the crap out of Guy B, and B is very badly hurt.
Maybe Guy B lives, maybe he dies.
If B lives, A may be charged with assault (or maybe aggravated assault) . . . but if there’s evidence that his intent was to kill B, he may be charged with attempted murder. A’s actions are the same. The only difference is in A’s intention.
If B lives, A may be charged with murder . . . but if there’s evidence that he did not intend to kill B, he may be charged with manslaughter. A’s actions are the same. The only difference is in A’s intention.
Like I said, I may have the details a little off (and I’m sure Mythago knows this better than I do), but the point is that the law already punishes the same action differently based on 1) different degrees of damage (did B live or die) and 2) different intentions (did A intend to kill B or not)?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Myca, I thought I had answered that in #56. But I’ll try again: No, I believe most things that are killed “hate crimes” cause more *subjective* harm. Keep in mind that we’re dealing with at least two kinds of hate crimes: one targets people of a particular grouping, and the other is meant to spread a message about people of a particular grouping. (For example, in the Newsom-Christian murders and the woman recently tortured by whites, there was no element of deliberately attempting to give a message; there was only the question of why the victims were chosen.)
In the first sort of hate crime, the victims are being chosen for particular reasons. But *all* reasons for choosing victims are wrong.
In the second sort, the sort we’ve been focusing on in this discussion, the perpetrators are committing a crime and declaring “these people should be treated differently than others.” Society’s proper answer should be “No! We reject your premise! These people should be treated *the same* as others! We are all equal under the law, and the law will reflect that!”
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Myca, judging what was intended is part of judging premeditation: Did you plan what you did? Did you mean to cause more harm or less harm than you did, or did your deed match your intention?
But adding hate crime considerations to the mix now says, for example, that someone who is murderously misanthropic (like Henry H. Holmes) should be judged as being less heinous than someone who is misogynistic or racist or homophobic. And I continue to disagree. Murder is wrong, no matter whether the victim is white or black, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim…. The law should reflect that.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here. It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here. It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here. It’s been pointed out to you again and again that this is a lie, Will. Hate crime laws don’t do what you’re saying here.
How many times do we need to repeat this before you’ll back down from repeating this lie again and again?
Let’s say that when anti-Semites were made at Terrence McNally’s for his play “Corpus Christi,” they had gone through with their threat to kill — as they put it at the time — “Jew guilty homosexual Terrence McNally… Death to the Jews worldwide.”
As it happened, they were mistaken; McNally is Catholic, not Jewish. But that McNally is Catholic would have been no defense against a hate crimes charge, because committing a crime out of animus towards a religion is a hate crime without regard to the actual religion of the victim. And would have been just as much a hate crime if they were anti-Christian instead of anti-Jewish.
The claim that hate crime laws judge “the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation [of] the victim” is a total lie, Will. Any arguments you make based on that premise are based in a lie.
(And by the way, white civil rights workers who are killed by racists are usually killed out of racist hate for “race traitors.” That would be just as much of a hate crime as killing a black civil rights worker.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Not true. There are murders that were not premeditated and beatings that were not premeditated both. We’re not discussing premeditation, we’re discussing intent.
Do you actually believe that the same action “beating a man badly” should be punished the same? Do you have the courage of your convictions?
Or do you believe that motive matters, and that damage matters, and that whether you mean to beat a man to death or not should be punished differently?
It’s a fairly simple question.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Ampersand, you may conclude that I’m a lying liar who is lying, but, uh, why would I lie about something like this? Really, it makes more sense to conclude that I’m just an idiot.
And the law recognizes that criminals make mistakes. If I kill someone because I think they have a million dollars in their basement and they don’t have a million dollars, the law still judges me for murder. So I don’t think your McNally example is pertinent.
What gets tricky about the ‘64 case is I don’t think the killers saw the whites as race traitors. I think they saw them as meddling Yankees. But I could be wrong; I haven’t read any statements by the killers. Since I was one of the people called a nigger-lover that year, I know they might well have been seen as nigger-lovers, and I suppose that’s close to being a race-traitor.
And in any case, I think three human beings were murdered, so their murderers should be charged with three murders.
Myca, I’ve been trying to say all along that beating someone with the intent to kill them is a legitimate concern of the law. But the reasons for beating someone with the intent to kill them should be restricted to questions of competence and legal responsibility. Punish the deed. Punish the *intended* deed. But do not punish the beliefs that were used to rationalize the intended deed, because then you’re on the path to punishing thoughts. In a free society, bigots have to be free to be bigots; they should only be restrained from acting on their bigotry.
Honest, guys. I’m comfortable dropping this anytime, because either you believe the law should treat everyone the same or you don’t. If the law is going to favor anyone, I prefer hate crimes to old-fashioned casting a blind eye toward certain crimes, but my preference will always be for absolute equality.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Fair enough.
The *INTENDED* deed is ’scaring those Jews out of town.’
That is a different *INTENDED* deed (and causes different damage) than ‘breaking some windows for fun.’
That’s what we’re saying.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
So make “scaring Jews out of town” a crime. If you can’t break it out and make it work as a crime on its own, then I seriously doubt the justice system’s ability to factor it in as a complicating issue in other crimes. (”I can’t tell you for sure if something is pornography. But I can definitely tell you if pornography was used in the commission of a crime!”)
It’s really been…interesting to read this thread. Will is an old-fashioned leftist (maybe a Marxist, hard to tell) who listened apparently too well to the OLD left-liberal line about race. It’s a good line. I believe it myself, as do lots of other people.
The new model seems less persuasive, to be honest. There’s too much special pleading, and everywhere you look someone is mistaking a contingent current condition for a baseline fact.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Right, which is why ‘thinking about killing that dude’ is a crime all on its own.
That’s a great point.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I think this is the most angry i’ve seen Amp get in the comments.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“sylphhead, if one act is done by a minor and one is done by an adult, I’m content to conclude that the minor gets the benefit of the doubt.”
Is that what you think the law should do, or is that your personal gut judgment? I was asking for the latter, not the former. I don’t care about the former.
The state can’t act on everyone’s personal gut judgments. Sometimes out of practical concerns, and sometimes because it is not the state’s business. But it is not clear, from what you’ve said in this thread*, whether you believe that:
1) a campaign of intimidation is more wrong than mindless vandalism, but the law should restrict itself to ‘a brick through the window is a brick through the window’. (And why else would it be ‘more wrong’ unless it caused more objective harm? So a simple ‘yes’ to my question would have sufficed much more nicely than long-winded redundancies.)
2) a campaign of intimidation is exactly the same as mindless vandalism, a brick through the window is a brick through the window, according to the moral laws of the universe.
The reason I brought up counterterrorism and copyright law, will, is that a lot of those who oppose hate crime legislation are conservatives who applaud counterterrorism laws that basically do the same thing - harsher penalties based on the political motivations for the ’same crime’. (I oppose the PATRIOT act, but I certainly don’t object to counterterrorism legislation in principle.) Or else they’re libertarians who want the ‘fewest number of laws possible’ who nonetheless have no problem with the government granting to corporations state monopolies on the molecules of life. I consider it pertinent whether or not the person I’m debating is a shit-eating hypocrite - luckily, from your responses, I don’t think you fall under either category.
“A specific example: In 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered. Two were white, and one was black. Should the charge of a hate crime have been added to the murder of the black man, but not to the whites? Racism was clearly a factor. The murderers were white, so killing the white men does not fit the traditional definition of a hate crime.”
will, you are still completely misunderstanding hate crime legislation. There’s no checklist of ‘isms’ along the lines of ’sexism, racism, classism’, whereby if - and only if - your crime is committed against women, black Americans, or the poor, it gets called a hate crime. ANY crime committed against ANY member of a group *because* they were a member of that group is a hate crime. An assault on a black person because she’s black is a hate crime. An assault on a white person for being a race traitor is a hate crime. An assault on a polydactyl because he has six fingers is a hate crime. An assault on a lactose intolerant because she is a lactose intolerant is a hate crime.
“What gets tricky about the ‘64 case is I don’t think the killers saw the whites as race traitors. I think they saw them as meddling Yankees.”
And an attack on Yankees because they are Yankees is a hate crime.
*Yes, I did hear your pronouncements along the lines of ‘prejudice and bigotry are wrong’ - but those statements are meaningless and self-evident. They’d mean more if we’d tie them to one of the real life examples that we are using.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Myca @ 73: The intended *deed* is breaking the window. The reasoning behind that particular intended deed may be racist or not. Being racist is morally wrong. Breaking a window is morally and legally wrong. The proper response by the community to a broken window that targets a subcommunity is not “We’ll add extra charges!” It’s “We don’t care whose window you break, that’s wrong!”
Robert, I’m not sure whether I’m a very old-fashioned christian (as in, I prefer Jesus and the Baptist to Paul) or a pacifist communist, but you’re completely right that the new and amorphous model of race does not seem useful to me, so I would just as soon throw it out entirely. The theory of “race” has had a four-hundred year run. It’s time to let it go the way of phlogiston.
Myca @75: I’m missing your point. If you make plans to kill someone, it’s a crime. But if you wish someone was dead, it’s not. And I’m completely cool with that division. (And I hope anyone who’s annoyed with me will lean strongly toward the latter position!)
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Is that what you think the law should do, or is that your personal gut judgment? I was asking for the latter, not the former. I don’t care about the former.
I try to make them the same—sometimes my gut judgment needs to be revised, but eventually, my gut and my brain will agree.
it is not clear, from what you’ve said in this thread*, whether you believe that:
1) a campaign of intimidation is more wrong than mindless vandalism, but the law should restrict itself to ‘a brick through the window is a brick through the window’. (And why else would it be ‘more wrong’ unless it caused more objective harm? So a simple ‘yes’ to my question would have sufficed much more nicely than long-winded redundancies.)
There are often more than two possible answers to questions. What’s morally wrong and what’s legally wrong are different things, and should be different things. Being a racist is morally wrong. Breaking a window is legally wrong. Breaking a window because you’re a racist is both morally and legally wrong, but the law should restrict itself to the broken window, not the racism.
The reason I brought up counterterrorism and copyright law, will, is that a lot of those who oppose hate crime legislation are conservatives who applaud counterterrorism laws that basically do the same thing - harsher penalties based on the political motivations for the ’same crime’.
Ah. I’m not one of them. I’m not a conservative, and I don’t believe in harsher penalties for political motivations.
Or else they’re libertarians who want the ‘fewest number of laws possible’ who nonetheless have no problem with the government granting to corporations state monopolies on the molecules of life.
And I think the capitalist love of corporate power is insane.
ANY crime committed against ANY member of a group *because* they were a member of that group is a hate crime. An assault on a black person because she’s black is a hate crime. An assault on a white person for being a race traitor is a hate crime. An assault on a polydactyl because he has six fingers is a hate crime. An assault on a lactose intolerant because she is a lactose intolerant is a hate crime.
I understand that. And I think it is wrong. A crime against a human being should be judged as a crime against a human being.
But I am curious: Have there been examples of “hate crimes” being applied in cases other than the usual isms?
And do you know of any “hate crimes” being applied in cases involving “race traitors”?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am
It can be, but isn’t necessarily. You can make comments to a friend about how you want to kill someone, and that’s not a crime. If you DO kill him, though, it can be used to demonstrate premeditation.
I only bring it up to demonstrate that Robert’s standard is transparently false.
Mitigating factors do not need to be crimes all on their own, obviously.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Right, which is why ‘thinking about killing that dude’ is a crime all on its own.
But “thinking about killing that dude” isn’t the justification you’re presenting for recognizing hate crimes. The justifications you’re presenting are “drive all of those dudes out of town”, or “scare all of those dudes”, or “wipe that group of dudes out of existence”. Each of which is a crime, or a good case can be made that it should be a crime.
By contrast, wanting to kill a dude is pretty much the default state in a murder.
I have seen cases held up as avatars of good hate crimes cases, and in most of those cases, it always seemed to me that there was another additional crime in there - not a complication or exacerbation of an existing crime.
It’s wrong to throw a brick through someone’s window, as a prank, because you hate glass, or because you want to make that person afraid. It’s also wrong to commit thuggish acts against someone to make them afraid. If someone is throwing a brick through a window to cause fear, then we should prosecute them for throwing a brick through a window, AND we should prosecute them for causing fear.
If we can’t prove the latter case as a crime in its own right, then I don’t see how we could have proven it as an exacerbating factor. As a crime in its own right, we make it conceptually much clearer and we avoid the emotional reaction - which, “lie” or not, Amp, has tremendous resonance with Joe Sixpack - of “they’re making it illegal to hold certain opinions”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Damn, Myca beat me to it with post 73.
“If you can’t break it out and make it work as a crime on its own, then I seriously doubt the justice system’s ability to factor it in as a complicating issue in other crimes.”
Robert, in law, there are things that exist only as aggravating factors. Drinking and driving is a crime, but you can’t break drinking out and make it a crime on its own.
That being said, ideally hate crime legislation should be kept to those cases that are fairly straightforward. My main insistence on supporting the concept of hate crime laws in principle are as follows:
1. Without them, the law has no weapon against ‘running the Jews out of town’.
2. Hate crime is essentially domestic terrorism, except that it’s traditionally committed against disempowered and minority groups (though as has been repeated incessantly, it does not have to ), whereas terrorism as we call it is usually committed against the dominant group. Criminalizing the latter but not the former really doesn’t sit well with me.
[EDIT: forgot about these two]
“When you say that “new powers” are my only “defense against the analogy to mens rea,” you’re wrong. I have at least two objections: I don’t like adding additional penalties to things that are already crimes, and I believe the analogy to mens rea is simply wrong. “Hate crimes” add a new layer of consideration to the considerations that already go into mens rea.”
You oppose adding additional penalties to things that are already crimes. As opposed to adding penalties to things that weren’t previously crimes? You’d be okay with that? And how does the first differ from the second? What’s the difference here between adding “additional penalties” and adding “a new layer of consideration”?
You’re trying hard to word it in a manner that doesn’t imply my formulation (’new powers’), but the words you have no choice but to use: ‘add’, ‘additional’, ‘already’, show that my formulation is correct. And I’ve already gone over why objecting to ‘new powers’, as romantic and nostalgic as that is, is impossible in today’s world - chances are, these objections are applied highly selectively.
“No, I believe most things that are killed “hate crimes” cause more *subjective* harm.”
Huh? What does that mean? Are sending threatening letters to someone now a matter of ’subjective’ harm? So should it not be a crime?
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:35 am
will, I’ve no time for another complete post, but suffice to say you’ve answered my earlier question with your post #79. So some of what I just recently posted will no longer apply - no need to respond to those.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
You already conceded, in post #45 that hate crimes legislation offers no extra protection to any group of people, that they’re applied fairly across the population, and that hate crimes do treat everyone as equal under the law.
Please do not make arguments that you have already admitted are false.
If you have changed your mind and you now believe that hate crimes offer some sort of extra protection, please show where that extra protection is and who it applies to.
If you are unable to do this, please stop making this argument, which is impressive in terms of rhetoric, but which you have already admitted is a blatant lie.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“No, I believe most things that are killed “hate crimes” cause more *subjective* harm.”
Huh? What does that mean? Are sending threatening letters to someone now a matter of ’subjective’ harm? So should it not be a crime?
Okay, first I have to say that’s a new typo for me. Typoers of the world, untie! You have nothing to lose but your cgaubs!
Now, my family got death threats because of our involvement in civil rights. I’ve seen my mother in tears because of death threats. I like having the police investigating death threats to see if there’s an intent to kill, and I don’t care what the reasoning behind the threat is. I also agree that certain kinds of speech are not protected, and death threats fall into that territory; there’s an enormous difference between “I wish you were dead” and “You’re going to be killed.”
But the idea that a crime like vandalism or assault or murder is also the threat of future crimes can be applied to most crimes. Many criminals continue their crimes until they’re caught. What matters isn’t their vague desire to keep on acting criminally. What matters are the crimes they have committed and the planning they may have done to commit more crimes.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Oddly enough, I don’t necessarily favor hate crime laws myself.
Like Will, I am predisposed against making laws in every case, unless we’re convinced that the laws address a real need.
I do see a theoretical need for hate crime laws in something like the example of a brick with “die Jews die” written on it chucked through a window. (Nor do I see any free speech issue; no message written on a brick thrown illegally through a window is legally protected speech.)
But how often does an example like that — a crime that would get a slap on the wrist, if not for hate crimes legislation — actually come up? I don’t know, but I’d need to be shown that it happens fairly regularly to be convinced that we have a pressing need for a law to address such instances.
My other concern is that, because hate crime laws do give judges and prosecutors even more discretion than usual, they will be disproportionately used against poor people and people of color. Given the legal system’s performance generally, I think that’s a well-founded concern. [*]
I’m not going to actively oppose hate crimes legislation. But nor am I particularly in favor of them, for the above reasons.
Nonetheless, the blatant lies from right-wing opponents of hate crime legislations — lies which Will is echoing, either because he’s a liar or because he’s been duped — still piss me off. Honest arguments are better than dishonest arguments, imo. (And Will, my strong desire to give you the benefit of the doubt gets strained when you are told over and over that a point is untrue, admit you’re wrong on that point, but refuse to drop that same point.)
(And Robert, that these lies play well with the general public doesn’t excuse them in any way; although since the party you favor would be absolutely unelectable if they had any compunction about lying often and flagrantly, I guess I can see why you’d consider “it may be a lie, but it’s a darn popular one” to be a reasonable argument to make.)
[*] This is also why I’m against banning handguns.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Myca, the bit you quoted @ 84 was dealing with a specific hypothetical situation in which a subgroup was targeted; that’s why I said, “In the second sort.”
In #45, I said hate crime laws appear to be applied fairly if a class analysis of the statistics is accurate, but that does not make them right. My understanding is that hate crime laws are only applied when people are sure that there was prejudice against a certain group, and those groups are based on the classic isms, which includes prejudice against “white” people. If there are exceptions, like hate crimes applied in cases involving “race traitors” or “Yankees”, I would love to hear about it.
But I would still think it was wrong. Harming a person is harming a person. Creating different kinds of victims before the law is wrong, no matter how well-intended it may be. No matter what group is being targeted for a crime, the legal response should be to address the crime, and not the perpetrator’s belief about the affiliation of the victim.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Actually, I agree with Robert; “creating a climate of reasonable fear of criminal violence in a community” should be a separate felony, not just an add-on at sentencing. (Although there should be reasonable first amendment protections and affirmative defenses available.) (Also, a more concise name for the new felony should be devised.)
And if a person can be prosecuted for that crime, then great. But they should have to be prosecuted in front of a jury or judge for that specific crime, in addition to any other crimes they committed, before they can be punished for it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Joe writes:
Oh, I’ve been MUCH angrier than this. :-p But now that I’ve semi-retired from being a blogger, I don’t feel as obliged to keep my cool as I once did.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“Will, my strong desire to give you the benefit of the doubt gets strained when you are told over and over that a point is untrue, admit you’re wrong on that point, but refuse to drop that same point.”
Being told repeatedly that something is untrue does not make it untrue. I think what’s baffling you about my position is this: Something can be applied fairly and still be wrong. The death penalty is an easy example. My objection to hate crimes is not just that when they’re applied, they say it is worse for, as an example, a black man to kill a white man than it is for a black man to kill another black man. My greatest objection is that when they’re applied, they discriminate based on the thoughts of the perpetrator. I don’t care whether a black who kills a white is racist, and I don’t care whether a white who kills a black is racist. What I care about is murder being addressed on equal grounds for everyone.
Well, I’ve probably tried to clarify that much more than is useful. We’re up to 89 posts as I type this. It’s cool by me if we don’t hit 100.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
And that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that.
In the future, though, if you make reference to hate crime laws offering ’special protection’ or ‘extra protection’ to a group of people, you will be asked to provide evidence of who these people are and what protection they have that the rest of us do not.
And, if you are unable to do so and continue to repeat proven lies, you will be banned.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Myca, I just searched this page. In this entire discussion, you’re the only person who has used the phrases “special protection” and “‘extra protection.”
But to continue this a bit further: whenever hate crime laws are applied, they add extra penalties based on the prejudice of the perpetrator. Without evidence of prejudice, as in Newsom-Christian or the woman in West Virginia, hate crime laws are not applied. So, when a “hate crime” is charged in a “black on white” crime, it adds the possibility of a greater sentence than if the same crime was committed against another black. If I understand you correctly, that’s what you are referring to with the labels of “special protection” and “extra protection”, which I gather you’ve heard from people other than me.
And I think it’s wrong to punish a black person more for killing a white person than for killing a black person. It may be fair if you’re also punishing a white person more for killing a black person than for killing a white person. But it’s still wrong.
That’s where the appearance of preferential treatment comes in. It’s this additional sentence based on the thoughts of the perpetrator that result in targeting a victim from a perceived group.
But targeting *anyone* is wrong.
And the law should reflect that.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I’m fine with that. How we specifically punish these sorts of crimes isn’t as important to me as that we punish them.
I’m just not okay with the idea that the ‘rock through the window with ‘die Jews die” scenario and the ‘rock through the window because teenagers were drunk and stupid’ scenario should be punished the same.
And in fact, the idea that they should be punished the same seems to me to be an artifact of some pretty serious privilege.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
We can’t prove a negative. If you make a positive claim, I think it’s reasonable for us to expect you to prove it; for instance, by quoting the portion of an actual hate crimes law that calls for “judging the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation [of] the victim.”
I have no problem understanding that. I can think of many cases — including, possibly, hate crime laws as they’re currently set up — in which I think a law could be applied fairly but nonetheless be a law I’d rather not be passed.
However, what I don’t understand is why you claim that hate crime laws call for “judging the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation [of] the victim,” when as a matter of fairly clear-cut fact they do not. Or, if I’m terribly mistaken on the facts at issue with that particular claim, why you don’t show me I’m mistaken by quoting a hate crimes law which does call for “judging the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation [of] the victim.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
To Will Shetterly:
Will: Julie, murder is murder, and murder should be punished. The problem in the past was that not everyone would receive equal justice in every place. The solution is to make sure that everyone does receive equal justice. And you don’t create equal justice by adding extra penalties to some crimes.
Julie Z: But when a murder serves the purpose of terrorizing an entire group of people it’s quite a different set of circumstances. We need hate crime laws in order to show that perpetrating an act of violence against anyone based on race, sexual orientation, etc., is more of a crime than causing harm to someone for other reasons such as robbery or other kinds of crimes that only inflict damage on an individual, but a hate crime affects everyone in the said group. That’s the difference and that is what distinguishes the crime of hate as being more of a crime than a crime against an individual that has no affect on any group or minority but one individual.
Will: A specific example: In 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered. Two were white, and one was black. Should the charge of a hate crime have been added to the murder of the black man, but not to the whites? Racism was clearly a factor. The murderers were white, so killing the white men does not fit the traditional definition of a hate crime.
Julie Z: I think that the murders of the white men in this case should be a hate crime as well, simply because the white men were killed for being in support of civil rights for blacks. So what do you think of that, will? Use some logic here.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
If you make a positive claim, I think it’s reasonable for us to expect you to prove it; for instance, by quoting the portion of an actual hate crimes law that calls for “judging the crime on the basis of the sex, creed, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation [of] the victim.”
From A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes by the Bureau of Justice Assistance:
“The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, reli-
gion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property.””
Julie, I think when you start talking about crimes against groups based on crimes that were committed against individuals, you’re sliding toward validating thought crimes. In the case of the three civil rights workers, I think logic simply calls for treating them as murders and pursuing the murderers until they are caught and sentenced.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
they say it is worse for, as an example, a black man to kill a white man than it is for a black man to kill another black man
No, actually, they don’t. And it’s your “nananana can’t hear you” refusal to look at what hate crimes actually are, and their actual effects, that is making people fed up with you. Is trolling all you’re trying to accomplish?
Robert, are you saying that, like will, you believe that if a bunch of neo-Nazis burn a cross on a black family’s lawn, their actions should be treated exactly the same under the law as if I go on Amp’s lawn and build a little campfire for roasting marshmallows? Or that throwing a brick with “Kikes get out” written on it through a Jewish family’s window is the same as the contractor next door accidentally dropping a brick through their skylight while he’s fixing a chimney? A brick through a window is a brick through a window, yo.
Because as you know and I’m sure will really knows, this isn’t about “it’s worse to kill somebody because they’re black than if they’re white”. It’s not about treating certain groups as more worthy under the law than others.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Mythago, I realize I’m effectively a unitarian among trinitarians, so I’ll stop this at any moment. (100 would be good!)
But your comment at #97 seems to imply that hate crime laws do not add any additional legal consequence to an action, and I’m thinking that’s wrong. Are you saying that a black man who kills a white man and is found guilty of a hate crime will not get a greater sentence than if he had simply killed a black man?
Also, I’ve seen crosses burn in the South. They’re a whole lot bigger than a “little campfire.” When we couldn’t get fire insurance because the Klan was threatening to burn us down, the insurance company was not worried about roasting marshmallows.
You even more blatantly stack the deck in your next sentence: No one has said things done accidentally and intentionally should be judged the same. We’re saying you should not judge the thoughts behind the intention to commit the crime.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
So it’s okay to judge the thoughts, just as long as they’re not thoughts about race?
I’m happy to change my example to my friends and I sneaking onto Amp’s yard and building a huge bonfire for our Imbolc celebration.
Are you saying that a black man who kills a white man and is found guilty of a hate crime will not get a greater sentence than if he had simply killed a black man?
You’re stacking the deck again, will. Why is your killer charged with a hate crime only when he kills a white man? Do you think a black man could never be charged with a hate crime for killing another black man?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I think what Mythago is saying is that the additional penalty is not about it being ‘worse’ for a black man to kill a white man.
(and you know this because it’s been said a thousand times)
It’s about the additional damage a hate crime does, not to the victim but to the entire community.
(and you know this, too, because it’s been said a thousand times)
I realize that you don’t think there’s much of a difference between the ‘rock through the window with ‘die Jews die” scenario and the ‘rock through the window because teenagers were drunk and stupid’ scenario, but the rest of us see a difference.
(and you know this, too, because it’s been said a thousand times)
The difference we see is that the Jewish kid who’s scared to go to school is a victim. You believe that it is acceptable to victimize and abuse him without penalty. We do not.
The difference we see is that the Jewish parents who are frightened to go to sleep or leave the kids home alone are victims. You believe that it is acceptable to intimidate and terrify them without penalty. We do not.
The difference we see is that the Jewish family who feels like they have to move away to find peace are victims. You believe that it is acceptable to drive them out of town without penalty. We do not.
You see one victim. We see many more.
Incidentally, the perpetrators of these crimes see many more too . . . that’s why they do it.
(You know this, too. Thousand times.)
My question for you, and this echoes something Ampersand said a hell of a long time ago, is what penalty do you feel is appropriate?
It needs to be a something that is appropriate for both the skinheads trying to terrify the Jewish family and the 20-year olds goofing around.
The crime is vandalism.
You don’t like our answer. What’s yours?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mythago, where did I say it’s okay to judge anyone’s thoughts? All I’ve said is that it’s okay to judge whether you intended to commit a crime or whether you knowingly committed one. What matters is the crime. Otherwise, everyone who’s ever fantasized about doing something illegal is guilty of a crime that should be punished legally, and I hope we agree that way lies madness.
As for “stacking the deck,” if you follow the FBI link that I posted back at 45, you’ll see that the reason hate crimes are fair is because anyone can be charged with them. I’ll quote the pertinent part again: “Among the 8,433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. The remaining offenders were of other or multi-racial groups.”
So I think it’s perfectly appropriate to take a black murderer as a hypothetical case. If you don’t think it’s right for a black man to get a more severe sentence for killing a white man, your complaint would seem to be with hate crime laws, not me.
I don’t really understand your final question. Do you know of black men who have been charged with hate crimes for killing other black men? If so, I assume a reason like homophobia applies.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Myca, I understand what you believe, and if you wish to protect whites from blacks or blacks from whites, hate crimes would appear to make sense, but I think you should protect people from people.
“I realize that you don’t think there’s much of a difference between the ‘rock through the window with ‘die Jews die” scenario and the ‘rock through the window because teenagers were drunk and stupid’ scenario, but the rest of us see a difference.”
And you realize incorrectly. I’ve said repeatedly that I think racism is reprehensible. What you don’t seem to realize is that I do not think the law is the best way to address every evil in the world. The law is fairest when it treats everyone the same.
In the case of the family targeted by a racist vandal, the vandalism should be addressed by the law. The rest of the problem should be addressed by the community: people should go to the family and say, “We’re doing all we can to find the vandal, and when we find him or her, he or she will be charged, because you are one of us, a cherished member of our community, with every right that any of us has.”
And bringing the family some food would also be a good idea.
And setting a neighborhood watch to catch the vandal would be good.
And trying to get psychiatric help for the vandal would also be good, because if you just say he or she is a racist and prison is the answer, prison may make that person a more committed racist.
I’m at message #102 now. Really, it’s time to bow out. So unless a question raises a radically new aspect of this question, I’ll do my part to let this thread sleep now.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The question remains: What penalty do you think is appropriate?
$50 fine for a broken window?
Yeah, that’s probably going to stop them, isn’t it?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
And yeah, a community response would be great . . . but there’s a reason that it’s news when a community does that.
And it’s not because it’s common.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Myca, I believe judges should be able to judge—that’s part of what I despise about “three strikes” legislation. So I’m not going to offer an arbitrary penalty for a hypothetical crime. The judge should look at the cost of fixing what was broken, at whether the vandal is a repeat offender, at whether prison or probation or therapy would seem to be the best solution, etc. (I’m big on therapy for crimes like vandalism.)
And if the community doesn’t rally to support you, I don’t care what the law does. If the community is against you, you get to decide whether to tough it out or leave. If you tough it out, I don’t think “hate crime” laws will help you, and they may make people even more angry at you.
Back in the early ’60s, my father pointed out to me that people in the US have a long list of legal rights that sound great, and countries like Canada didn’t have any explicitly granted legal rights, yet Canadians did okay, and rights in the US were being very selectively applied. And ever since then, I’ve believed that societies matter much more than laws.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
But that’s the point, isn’t it? The same crime can receive greater or lesser penalties depending on various externalities.
I thought it was all about ‘the same crime treated the same”.
Why, my goodness, you’re not in favor of that at all!
You did an interesting thing here. It’s called a false choice fallacy.
Either the community ‘rallies around you’, or they’re ‘against you’. There’s no such thing as ‘mostly indifferent and concerned with themselves, and sure, they oppose harassment, but not enough to have a goddamn neighborhood bake sale’, which seems to be the most common state of things.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Myca, we fundamentally disagree about the nature of the considerations that should be allowed to go into judging cases.
I was sloppy in the way I expressed the bit about community support. I completely agree that there’s a wide range of ways a community may respond when one of its members is under attack. I didn’t mean to ignore the middle of the spectrum when I pointed to the best and worst cases. Sorry about that bit of confusion.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
So you do not believe that a judge should be allowed to assess a harsher penalty against the skinhead in the previous example?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The problem with omitting the middle is that that’s precisely where hate crimes legislation is important.
Yes, you’re right that in a super-strong community, they’re unnecessary, and in a super-hostile community they’re no good anyway . . . but the vast majority of US communities, I believe fall in the middle, and the middle is where the law makes a difference.
And to have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize a Jewish family is part of how you make them a part of the community.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Oh, man, Myca, we’re hitting 110! I got to bail soon!
When you ask “So you do not believe that a judge should be allowed to assess a harsher penalty against the skinhead in the previous example?” are you referring to message #100?
If so, first I have to note that not all skinheads are racist or violent. As for what I mean by acceptable legal considerations in that case: Was the vandal an adult? Then a harsher penalty may be appropriate. Was the vandal legally sane? Then ditto. Was the vandalism premeditated rather than impulsive or accidental? Then ditto.
But the judge should not be allowed to judge the vandal more harshly for being racist. Being a racist is one of the ugly freedoms of life in a free society.
“And to have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize a Jewish family is part of how you make them a part of the community.”
I would rather have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize any family. That’s how I would make every family a part of my community. If one family is being terrorized by a neighbor who hates everyone and another is being terrorized by a neighbor who’s a racist, don’t you want to say that neither will be tolerated and both are wrong? Why should you take one form of terrorism less seriously than the other?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
We’re going in circles. Mostly because you’re playing childish little games.
Do you believe that anyone here has proposed penalizing anyone for ‘being racist” rather than ‘committing a crime with the goal of victimizing a specific group”?
Either say yes or no.
If the answer is yes, provide evidence.
If the answer is no, stop claiming things that aren’t true.
This is an ongoing pattern with you, and I’m not the only one who’s pointed it out. It’s time for you to stop now.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Myca, do you dispute the definition that I quoted @96 from A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes by the Bureau of Justice Assistance? Here are the crucial words: “manifest evidence of prejudice.” I think that’s the heart of what’s wrong with the theory of hate crimes. The “manifest evidence” is already a crime. Making the prejudice “manifest” in an illegal way is already a crime in every case. The prejudice can be based on “race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,” but what makes it a crime is making the prejudice manifest, or, in other words, committing a crime that comes out of prejudice.
That definition is your “provable evidence.”
Now, there are a lot of state-level hate crime laws, so I hope you’ll forgive me for sticking to this one.
What’s going on here is you see a simple problem: crimes that grow out of prejudice. So your solution is to add penalties to crimes that grow out of prejudice.
But that’s not the problem. The problem is that the law was not being enforced equally. The solution is to enforce it equally.
And I really do think we should stop discussing this now. When one person starts calling another one childish, at least one person in the discussion is being childish.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Will, the definition you posted doesn’t, even for a minute, penalize someone for “being racist.”
You keep claiming that’s true because it’s a mighty convenient lie to hang your argument on, that hate crime legislation is equivalent to thought crimes, that it puts you in jail for having opinions, etc, etc, etc.
Even in summarizing the definition, you said it yourself. It doesn’t outlaw ‘being racist’, or even add penalties for ‘being racist,’ what it does is:
In other words, I can be racist all day long, and I won’t be penalized a single dollar. I can even commit crimes, and I won’t be penalized extra for being racist. It’s when my crime grows from my racism . . . when my crime does the extra damage that such crimes do . . . that I will be penalized extra.
There’s no way you do not understand this. I am having a hard time concluding anything other than that your deceptions as to the facts around hate crime legislation are deliberate.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
By the by, it’s precisely this logic that the Supreme Court followed when they unanimously ruled hate crime legislation constitutional in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, saying that they saw no problem with enhancing punishment for hate crimes because:
Bolding mine.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Myca, you’ve gone from accusations of childishness to accusations of lies. I really shouldn’t reply, but here, I hope, is my last attempt. You say, “It’s when my crime grows from my racism . . . when my crime does the extra damage that such crimes do . . . that I will be penalized extra.”
Exactly right. You are penalized for committing a crime that grows from racism. The racism is the thought. That’s why a hate crime is both an actual crime (murder, assault, trespassing, vandalism, or whatever) plus a thought crime.
And, yes, the Supreme Court voted unanimously in support of hate crimes. The Supreme Court is inherently a conservative capitalist group. It gave us the Dred Scott decision. I’m not going to let my idea of what’s right be decided by people like Scalia and Thomas.
I think we’re far past the point where we should’ve stopped. I wish you well, and I’ll bow out of this now. Until the next discussion–
Will
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Ah, I see. I guess I didn’t understand before. It’s like how when I’m penalized for committing a crime that grows out of a desire to kill someone it’s murder, but if I just desired to hurt him it’s manslaughter.
Because the desire to kill is a thought!
That’s why murder is a thoughtcrime, right? I understand now.
I guess my only question is: Would you call thoughtcrimes like murder doubleplus ungood, or just ungood?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Oh, Myca, I beg you, let’s just agree to disagree, because we really seem to have come full circle. But I’ll try yet again, using your latest example:
Ah, I see. I guess I didn’t understand before. It’s like how when I’m penalized for committing a crime that grows out of a desire to kill someone it’s murder, but if I just desired to hurt him it’s manslaughter.
Because the desire to kill is a thought!
That’s why murder is a thoughtcrime, right? I understand now.
Desiring to kill someone is and should be legal. Trying to kill someone is not and should not be legal. It’s only when you decide to act upon your desire that the law should get involved, and then the law should focus on how you decide to act, not why. If I’m a legally sane adult and I plan your murder and I carry it out, I should be charged with murder. Whether I want you dead because you’re a political rival or a troublesome lover or someone whose wealth I hope to acquire or someone whose “race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” I hate shouldn’t matter in a court of law. Address the deed, not the thought behind the deed.
And I thought my previous farewell was good. Sorry to blow it now.
Agree to disagree?
Will
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Agreed.
Agreed
I’m not sure why you make this distinction, and I think that it is a false one.
Saying ‘I wanted to kill him, so I beat him badly’ puts your desire for your victim’s death as the ‘why,’ and a bad beating as the ‘how.’ The ‘why is essential here. Without taking the ‘why’ into account, this is manslaughter.
“Why’d you brain him with a crowbar?”
A) “He had a gun and was threatening me.”
B) “We were just playing around, and I slipped.”
c) “I wanted that SOB dead.”
Three different situations, three different reasons, and likely three different criminal penalties.
Reasons matter.
The point is that in many cases without examining your thoughts, we don’t know whether you intended to kill me, or whether it was an accident.
It doesn’t require ‘planning’ either. Screaming “I’m going to kill you” as you pummel me is just as admissible as a typewritten manuscript, “How I will Kill Myca.” It’s because planning isn’t the point, the state of mind of the accused is the point, and both of these can help indicate that.
That is, help indicate the thoughts of the accused. The thoughts.
I mean, really, your position seems to be that it’s okay to take everything into account except the prejudice of the accused. You’re not against considering thoughts, just these specific ones.
And that’s part of what bothers me about the whole argument. I have been snarky towards you of late, and it’s because I feel you’ve been arguing in bad faith, and refusing to directly address criticisms of your position.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Saying ‘I wanted to kill him, so I beat him badly’ puts your desire for your victim’s death as the ‘why,’ and a bad beating as the ‘how.’ the ‘why is essential here. Without taking the ‘why’ into account, this is manslaughter.
Uh, no. That sounds like attempted murder. Whether it’s premeditated isn’t clear from your context. When did you decide you were going to try to beat this guy to death? A day earlier would clearly mean it was premeditated. Right around the time you started beating on him would mean it was a crime of passion–which could result in a charge of voluntary manslaughter. The court does allow for a bit deal-making between the defense and the D.A.
I mean, really, your position seems to be that it’s okay to take everything into account except the prejudice of the accused. You’re not against considering thoughts, just these specific ones.
I’m against considering those thoughts and all other thoughts behind a crime. You may hate a former lover. That shouldn’t affect your sentence. You may want to steal a stamp collection from someone you’ve never met. That shouldn’t affect your sentence either.
I think you’re confusing “thoughts” with “intent.” The intent to commit a crime has, I think, always been a factor in deciding a criminal case. The thought behind the intent has only been a factor in determining legal sanity; if the thought is judged to be sane, the person may be tried. Now, you could argue that crimes committed out of prejudice indicate insanity, and I would probably be comfortable with that, because people who commit crimes out of prejudice clearly need psychiatric help. But “hate crime” laws are applied to people who are considered legally sane. That’s why I see a “hate crime” as an actual crime plus a thought crime.
Agree to disagree now?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Right around the time you started beating on him would mean it was a crime of passion.
Nope. Your own personal interpretation of what constitutes a crime of passion does not matter. What matters is the law’s interpretation. Commonwealth v. Earnest : “Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, where within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate, and premeditated.”
In criminal law re: unlawful killings, the different degrees (1st, 2nd, etc.) exist because sometimes the defendant is more culpable than others. Culpability is found, in part, by intent (i.e., motive / mental state / thoughts - in other words, by the aforementioned mens rea) as evidenced by actions. This mental state concept has been refined through much case law.
My point is that by adding a hate crime law to an objective crime, you’re adding to the penalty based on your interpretation of the motive for the crime.
Please explain, then, how a court distinguishes between 1st degree vs. 2nd degree murder and the concurrent sentences. After all, the victim is just as dead as if s/he fell off the top of the Sears Tower.
Big hint: Motive / intent / mental state / thoughts / mens rea is exactly how such determinations are made (among other considerations). These are discovered in examining all the evidence: Did the defendant stab the woman with short hair and no make-up, wearing a flannel shirt and carpenter jeans, once or 20 times? Where on her person? Did the defendant abscond with any of that victim’s personal property such as a wallet, or was nothing taken? Were any of the wounds inflicted after the victim died? Is there additional evidence on the victim’s body such as the word “dyke” carved into her skin? Such evidence in the aggregate clearly shows the defendant’s intent.
Intent already equals thought in the eyes of the law. Sentencing will vary depending on how such aggregated evidence is seen by the court - by the judge and by the jury (odd, this conversation has overlooked juries).
Under hate crimes laws, the carving of “dyke” into the victim’s skin is a message not to the victim, who may or may not actually be a lesbian, but to the entire community of lesbians. Because a message of, “Watch out dykes or I’ll carve you up” is the defendant’s clear intent as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding and causing the victim’s death, what could maybe have been a self-defense killing under different facts (”The victim was swinging at me with a baseball bat! I had to defend myself so I slashed at her twice!”) might move to felony murder (an unlawful killing occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony - armed robbery of the victim’s wallet, for example) or to a hate crime.
The same types of rules apply to battery (different from assault, which is the victim’s fear of imminent unwelcome contact, not the actual contact which is necessary for the charge of battery). The defendant’s thoughts (motive / intent) are evidenced by the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant’s behavior therein.
In other words, subjective intent is frequently considered. Rarely rarely rarely does criminal law examine only the objective crime.
These are the facts of criminal law: in some situations, the law already attempts to determine what a defendant was thinking when planning / engaging in specific criminal activities. With hate crimes laws, what we are seeing is that a defendant’s motives for acting can extend far far beyond her/his victim to reach a larger community. With this recognition, the law is moving into a significantly more sophisticated understanding of human behavior. Justice is being served by punishing the defendant more harshly in a hate crime situation, just as justice is being served by punishing the 1st degree unlawful killer far more harshly than the manslaughter unlawful killer.
I suggest you take a criminal law course for a deeper and broader understanding of the legal concepts, definitions, and rules at issue.
[edited for wording]
This comment was written by Bonnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Bonnie, thanks for clarifying that bit about the length of time that goes into premeditation. I’m not a lawyer, and this discussion has been bouncing between what we think the law currently is and what we think the law should be, so it’s been sloppy.
But as for mens rea, you appear to answer the question yourself: “evidence in the aggregate clearly shows the defendant’s intent.” In the case you offer, the intent is to murder; it’s not self-defense. Adding a hate crime consideration means that the accused person’s prejudice is being added to the intent to murder. Remember the definition from the Hate Crimes Statistics Act: ““crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.”
As for your example of carving a word into a body, that rules out self-defense right there. Using the carved word as evidence of the intent to murder is perfectly appropriate. It’s exactly as if “adulterer” or “scab” had been carved into a victim’s flesh. But using that to say that an additional sentence should be added because, in this case, the victim is a lesbian is wrong. The victim is a person, and the law should view her as a person, just like any other.
Here’s where your reasoning terrifies me: “the law is moving into a more sophisticated understanding of human behavior.” The “more sophisticated understanding” is based on taking into consideration the beliefs of the perpetrator, and that’s the definition of a thought crime. Now, you may wish to defend the state’s right to judge a person’s belief, but I think the state’s intrusiveness has to have limits. Those limits include an adult citizen’s skin (no one should be allowed to tell you what happens inside your body) and an adult citizen’s mind (no one should be allowed to tell you what to think). The state should only have clearly defined powers to judge what you do.
I also find this worrisome: “Justice is being served by punishing the defendant more harshly.” Is there any evidence that hate crime laws are effective ways to deter crime? Or is your definition of justice purely about punishment?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Oh, for God’s sake: it’s clear that no reasoning will ever reach these people. Can’t we just stop playing into their need to monopolise attention and do some real discussion on this issue?
There are some valid points that could be discussed (for example, Amp’s reservations about hate crime legislation which he expressed earlier). It would be nice to see some discussion of things like that, rather than the endless wheel-spinning that Will has manipulated us into doing.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Crys T Writes:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Oh, for God’s sake: it’s clear that no reasoning will ever reach these people. Can’t we just stop playing into their need to monopolise attention and do some real discussion on this issue?
There are some valid points that could be discussed (for example, Amp’s reservations about hate crime legislation which he expressed earlier). It would be nice to see some discussion of things like that, rather than the endless wheel-spinning that Will has manipulated us into doing.
Julie Z: I’m afraid that Will is just another expert at creating circular arguments. I am a four year member of the AOL “Gay Marriage Debate” comments board, and I have seen enough “wheel spinners,” as you put it, to know that some of them are experts at it. They are always good at ignoring the points made by others while they cook up non sequiturs that are nonsensical and illogical. Of course that type of posting members are all on my ignore list, because they are only interested in winning the debate by wearing people down to the point that they decide to ignore them, and of course to them, that means some kind of victory.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Crys T and Julie, thank you! I’ll happily leave so you can work on Amp. At some fundamental level, people either believe hate crime legislation is a useful way to address inequality or it’s not, so I should unsubscribe. But when I click “Manage your subscriptions,” I get “You may not access this page without a valid key.” Can anyone help me go away?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 am
crrys&julie,
This comment was written by joe.I agree that arguing with will is pointless. Now why don’t you make one of those more interesting points rather than just complain?
Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I’ll toss out a new one:
We all know that prejudice can be held by just about anyone–whites against blacks, blacks against whites, Jews against Christians and Christians against Jews; rich against poor and poor against rich.
Now, most of the time we sort of ignore the minority>majority issue: it may be true that there are some blacks who are prejudiced against whites, and who discriminate as a result, but in the world it doesn’t really have much effect so it’s not worth the focus. (ergo the “power requirement” included in the definition of racism.)
But crime is different, yes? We care about equal enforcement of the criminal laws for both majority AND minority offenders. (which is one of the reasons that over-enforcement against many minorities is so appalling, but I digress.) We may be willing to tolerate unequal discrimination by the various sides, but we’re not willing to tolerate unequal criminal action.
Anyway: do you expect that a population-proportionate sample of minorities (whether racial or otherwise) will be getting convicted of hate crimes? Or do you think that there will be proportionately more people convicted from the majority groups? And if you’re imagining that most of the people convicted (proportionately) will be white, or rich, Christian, etc.–what’s the basis for that belief?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 7:53 am
will, there’s nobody standing over you with a gun forcing you to post. If you want to stop talking, stop talking instead of insisting you HAVE to until you get the last word in.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Wiil,
You missed the part where I said that with changing the facts slightly, the charges will be different:
. . . what could maybe have been a self-defense killing under different facts (”The victim was swinging at me with a baseball bat! I had to defend myself so I slashed at her twice!”) might move to felony murder (an unlawful killing occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony - armed robbery of the victim’s wallet, for example) or to a hate crime.
This comment was written by Bonnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Also, reword this: Is there any evidence that hate crime laws are effective ways to deter crime?
to this: Is there any evidence that 1st degree v. 2nd degree v. manslaughter laws are effective ways to deter unlawful killings?
and you will understand [finally? we hope] that some of justice is punishment.
That’s not my definition. That’s the law’s definition.
This comment was written by Bonnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Good point, Bonnie.
Will, I apologize, but I can’t find any way of manually unsubscribing you, and for the immediate future I just don’t have a lot of time to spend trying to research what’s wrong with the plug-in. (I’m super-loaded with inflexible deadlines in the meatworld right now). Again, I apologize.
Sailorman wrote:
I have no idea. Even if the laws were applied with complete fairness, it might still not result in “a population-proportionate sample of minorities getting convicted of hate crimes,” because there’s no reason to assume that those who commit hate crimes will be population-proportionate.
My guess is that of the group who commits hate crimes (whatever that group’s proportions happen to be), a disproportionate number of poor people, racial minorities and men from that group will be convicted and punished. I guess this not because of anything about hate crime laws in particular, but because that’s true of US law in general.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Amp, no worries. It’ll be a good exercise in willpower for me. Good luck with the deadlines!
Mythago, I tend to answer points that are directed at me. As this shows. Seems rude not to. I’m especially weak when I’m asked questions. The easiest way to get me to go away is to ignore me, or to suggest something like “Agree to disagree now?”
Bonnie, thanks for follow-up!
Sailorman, I won’t be participating in the discussion, but remember that FBI link I found back around #45? I think it said 27% of the people convicted of hate crimes are black. If you don’t assume class is a factor, that’s shockingly disproportionate, since the US’s black population is around 10%. So, if you only look at race, hate crime laws hurt blacks disproportionately.
See y’all in the next thread!
Will
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“there’s no reason to assume that those who commit hate crimes will be population-proportionate.”
Aha & oho: this is of course a very important point. Of course, we’ll make sure we qualify it by saying that yes, of course a member/some members of Minority Group A might commit a hate crime against a member/some members of Minority Group B. Yes, that might well happen. However, IMO, given the very nature of hate crimes (eg maintaining the status quo by spreading terror amongst minority/minoritised groups), I’m guessing it’s likely that most hate crimes are committed by majority group members. And again, to qualify: I said “most” not “all.”
“My guess is that of the group who commits hate crimes (whatever that group’s proportions happen to be), a disproportionate number of poor people, racial minorities and men from that group will be convicted and punished.”
Again, I agree, and that is a very real problem. However, I don’t believe that this is a reason to reject or be dubious of hate crimes legislation as it’s something that’s true across the board for criminal convictions (well, excepting crimes that you pretty much have to be rich to commit, I guess), not something unique to society’s view of hate crimes per se. The solution to that happening is to bring about system-wide change.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Sailorman, coming in late here but obviously the same biases that already exist in the criminal justice system are not going to go away when we talk about hate-crime convictions. I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws
Because hate-crime laws give more power to the putatively evil system. Example: if a local justice system is thoroughly doused in racism and racists, then giving the system more power to prosecute racists is not likely to end up with a reduction of racism.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws.
Neither am I. I just thought it was an interesting topic to bring up.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The main reason we need hate crime law is for there to be a deterrent or a discouragement of a particular type of crime. Of course heterosexuals don’t feel a need for such a law in that they don’t have to worry about being beaten and killed for being a heterosexual. If any heterosexual were to be mistaken for a homosexual and were themselves beaten up for being gay, his/her outlook on whether the GLBT community needs a law that would discourage such criminal action would change to being in favor of such a law. A type of crime that any group of people is more susceptible to does indeed need special provisions made into law. If there is a danger such as the bigoted hate that exists in society toward GLBT people, or any race, there should be a deterrent in law that makes the perpetrator of any violence for the sake of hate think twice before committing the hate crime. Why would anyone not want a law that would discourage a certain type of crime toward a certain type of people?
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I seem to still be subscribed to this thread, so:
Julie, there are laws against people being beaten and laws against people being murdered. Why separate the different kinds of people and have different penalties for harming each?
I would have great sympathy for hate crime laws if there was any evidence that they worked to deter hateful assaults. But the people who commit those crimes already know that beating and killing people is illegal.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda. (I’ve asked this before, and if I recall correctly we got sidetracked.)
Your position is one I can potentially respect, if disagree with - but only if it’s consistent.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Someone who murders should be charged with murder, regardless of the motive. Punish the crime, not the thought.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
holy thread resurrection batman!
And lots of laws have different punishments depending on the reasons they occurred. Crimes of passion are considered less serious than cold, calculated murders. So in that vein, it only makes sense that harming someone for hatred for being something they didn’t choose to be can be considered a more severe form of a crime.
Either way, I tend to ignore the “hate crime” complaining because most of it comes not from libertarians but from conservatives who’ve been wiping their asses with the constitution for the better part of a decade.
This comment was written by Silenced is foo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Total agreement that conservatives make laws at whim: state’s rights only matter when that’ll get them what they want.
But it’s odd that you should bring up crimes of passion being less serious, because an argument could be made that hate crimes are often crimes of passion.
And also odd that you should think hurting someone for something they chose to be is less deserving of punishment than hurting them for something they did not choose. The rules should be simple: Humans are humans. Don’t hurt them.
Sneaking away from the discussion now….
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
will, all right, but why is it so hard to say “Yes” or “No”? I assume you’re saying “Yes”, but there’s an off chance that you’re redefining “murder” on an ad hoc basis - as in, hate crime murder is ‘just murder’ but terrorist murder is more than ‘just murder’. Again, I doubt you’re doing this, but I want to make sure. Let me repeat the question:
“will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda.”
Y-E-S or N-O
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
In my experience, when someone gives you two choices, you want the third one. Maybe that’s part of the reason I want laws to be as simple as possible—and judges to have discretion in interpreting them.
If the only bad thing someone has done is kill someone, the charge should be about killing someone. What you think about Al Qaida is your business.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Will, the thing you don’t seem to want to acknowledge is the fact that heterosexuals don’t have to worry about being attacked by GLBT people, it’s the other way around. Therefore we need a special deterrent for that specific crime that we are more prone to be affected by. If “the thought” is to attack someone because of what their sexual orientation is, then the hate thought put into action should be discouraged by law. If a person knows they would be doing a hate crime that carries extra punishment they will be less prone to do it. Once again, discouragement is better than no discouragement at all. If a criminal attacks a GLBT person for the common reasons people are attacked, such as robbery, rape, or murder for any other general reason the hate crime punishment would not be added to their punishment.
Just remember, you don’t have to worry about being accosted for being heterosexual, but we have to worry about being accosted for being GLBT. We have to worry with it and you don’t. So what we need is more protection against hate crimes than you do, for you it is not a need, because you as a heterosexual can go anywhere you please without the fear of being attacked for being heterosexual, and we can’t, because there is no legal discouragement or moral indignation of it pointed at the general public. We need the extra protection especially at this time because of the wake of prejudice, bigotry, and the demonize-ing of us that is coming from the right wing. We need extra protection because of those that think they are doing “God’s work” by committing acts of violence and discrimination against us because of what they see and hear from bigoted people that portray us as sinners, deviates, and destroyers of society.
There is no justification for your trying to say that there is no difference in the crime of murder when it comes to hate, because there is a difference, and the difference is we as GLBT people have to worry about hate crime toward our sexual orientations and you don’t. You are protected from the type of violence that commonly occurs just as we all are, but we are not protected by the “uncommon to heterosexuals type of violence” that only occurs to us, not you. So what does that mean? It means that we not only might suffer from the type of violence that may happen to people like yourself in general but also for the type of violence that you never have to even think about nor even make allowances for.
If we seem to get infuriated with you it is because you have no empathy for our special circumstances. You think that we should be satisfied with the law as it is when you do not suffer from the special circumstances of what we in the GLBT community suffer from.
Lastly, anyone can hate us all they want and they have the right to think anything they want, but this law concerns itself with what the reasons were for a crime of violence, not a mere thought by itself. If the reason for a violent crime is hate, then the crime is a hate crime which is worse than common crime for common reasons and should be punished in accordance to how much worse it is because of how much more of a problem it is for GLBT people than it is for heterosexuals of any race. The bill is for protection against “violence for the sake of hate,” not just the thought of hate itself because no thought is a crime, for hate itself can’t hurt anyone unless it is put into action (violence). If there was no special kind of hate in this country behind the violence perpetrated against GLBT people, which is regrettable in a secular country that is supposed to be a progressive and tolerant, then there would be no need for a special law to protect the GLBT community, but as we have seen, that is not the case. Violent bigots are a special problem for which we need special laws.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Julie,
Is there any evidence that “special deterrence” works?
I’ve never said the reasoning behind hate crimes is not different. Carried to its logical extreme, the reason for every crime is different, because people are not identical. I’m saying the deed is the same: a human being has been hurt. Bigots separate human beings into different categories and think they should be treated differently. The law should treat us all the same.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Since when did one need to provide proof that a certain punishment “works” in order to enact it? I don’t think it would be a bad idea to start doing so, but if we do so then we should do so across the board, and not only apply it to hate crime punishments.
The difference between assaulting someone because they’re gay and assaulting them for any other reason, is that the first is not just a crime against the person being assaulted. It is also a threat to everyone else who is gay: it causes them to (rationally) fear that they too will be beat up, and it forces them to unduly curtail their activities in order to stay safe. It causes “a chilling effect”, if you will. For the extra crime of causing this chilling effect, we add an extra punishment.
No such chilling effect exists for people who aren’t members of traditionally persecuted groups. There might exist somebody, somewhere who wants to beat you up because you’re short, or you have red hair, or you are left handed, but except in special circumstances it’s not going to cause you to curtail your everyday activities.
Lastly, I understand your desire to have the law treat everybody who does a given deed the same, regardless of their motivations. I would have a lot more sympathy for it if you started your campaign somewhere else (say, with eliminating the sentence enhancements for premeditation). Once you’ve written a screed against that, I’ll find it much easier to believe that you are sincere. (I still won’t agree with you, though.)
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Bjartmarr, good on you for cutting to the chase! Yes, fans of the death penalty and drug prohibition don’t care whether those solutions are effective. I oppose them, too. I’m a pragmatist: if a law is effective, I’ll have more respect for it than if it’s not.
As for the chilling effect, when I hear someone is attacking people who are gay, I’m chilled, partly for others: friends of mine may be hurt. And partly for me: I may be hurt. Bigots are not famously effective: there are cases of misdirected hate crimes, where someone who was thought to be gay or Arabic wasn’t. Having violent people around is not good for society, no matter who those people are targeting at a particular moment.
Premeditation is different. Hate crimes focus on the victim: who was hurt? Premeditation focuses on the crime: was this a spur of the moment thing, or was it planned?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Will, yes, there are some laws that don’t work, and are bad laws to begin with, like the death penalty and prohibitions, but with those laws innocent people are hurt.
Hate crimes isn’t about “who” was hurt, it’s about “why’ they were hurt and what affect the hate crime has on an entire community.
Many violent bigots think they have permission by a part of society to bring violence to GLBT people. They think it is more condoned by a portion of their societal environment and that is why there needs to be a special note hung on their door that reinforces the message that violent hate crimes will not be condoned by society….Period. If a hate crime law shows extra favor toward extra punishment for a violent bigot, so be it, at least the discouragement is there so as to protect innocent citizens, not hurt them.
In the case of the death penalty, I agree, it doesn’t work, the law doesn’t give any extra protection from murder because there is no real difference between incarceration and death in the minds of many criminals, in fact, incarceration for life is worse than death to many of them. The other reason the law is bad is that there is a chance that too many innocent people will be put to death, which makes the law super redundant. If the intent of a crime is specialized then the punishment should also be specialized and the only right way to do that is simply more time in prison. If a murderer has a life sentence for murdering a gay man, then adding more years to a sentence for the special circumstance of it being a hate crime would be an extra promise to minorities that the murderer will never see the light of day and will never be paroled and let out into society to only attack and kill another GLBT person that the criminal singles out from general society.
The drug prohibition, my pet peeve, is the most redundant law ever created by humans since the first foolish prohibition against alcohol. It didn’t work with alcohol drug which makes the drug war nothing but defiant stupidity in the face of history that has proved out through the test of time that prohibitions never work.
These things in law that you bring up have been proved to not work, but extra punishment for extra circumstances when it comes to extra jail time HAS been proved to work. Just like a criminal knows that he will face a lot more time if he commits a crime with a gun than without one, the law serves as a deterrent. Even if hate crime laws didn’t work for the GLBT community the laws can’t hurt innocent citizens like unconstitutional prohibitions and the death penalty does. All the hate crime law would do is serve as a deterrent and a help. Is that too much to ask for? If it made things safer for GLBT people in any way without affecting innocent people, then what the heck is wrong with that?
We make laws that protect certain species of animals, all the time, that are threatened by extinction because of a set of special circumstances, (hunted and killed more than others just like the GLBT community is) so why are human beings that suffer from special circumstances less of a concern or any less deserving of extra protection on the grounds of what special circumstances there are that definitely exist for GLBT citizens?
You say that you like things to be simple in law, but this is not a simple world, and comfortable simplicity may be comfortable for you, but certainly not for the GLBT community, because, for us, it’s just not that simple.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I’m always glad to hear that someone else opposes the DP and prohibition, but I reiterate my question: why do you demand that hate crime legislation “work”, but not apply such a test across the board? Or, to put it another way, why don’t you require proponents of incarceration for bank robbery have to prove that incarceration “works” before enacting such penalties? Why the special requirement that proponents of a penalty prove that it “works”? It’s easy for you to demand that test for penalties that you are opposed to, such as DP or prohibition; the real test of your conviction lies in whether it applies when it is inconvenient, such as when you want to throw someone in jail for robbing a bank. Because you don’t demand that lawmakers prove that incarceration “works” for bank robbery, I have a hard time believing that your “does it work?” philosophy is sincere.
This is why good hate crime legislation penalizes those who target people on their percieved membership in a protected group.
(I know I said that people who weren’t gay wouldn’t feel such a chilling effect above. It would have been more accurate to say that “people who weren’t percieved as gay wouldn’t feel such an effect.” Sorry, my bad, but I did it for brevity.)
But since you agree that this chilling effect exists, I don’t see why you don’t want to punish it.
Nope. Hate crimes focus on the motivation. See here.
(I know that’s California code, but it’s all I feel like looking up at the moment.) In particular: “”Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:” (emphasis mine). They’re looking at the motive here, not the victim.
If someone is beaten up because they’re short, hate crime penalties do not apply, whether they’re gay or not. If they’re beaten up because the attacker thinks they’re gay, then hate crime penalties apply, whether they’re gay or not. The sexual identity of the victim is irrelevant.
I understand that you oppose different penalties based on who the victim is, but that’s not what’s going on here.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
If a law doesn’t work, it’s an expensive waste of time for the legal system.
Bank robbers get arrested for robbing banks. Murderers get arrested for murder. People who assault people get arrested for assaulting people. These are all about deeds, and that’s how it should be.
We’ve had hate crime laws for, what, twenty years now? There should be evidence they’re effective. Instead, we find prosecutors ignoring them and focusing on the crime (see the recent cases with the white couple who were tortured and murdered, and the black woman who was tortured).
I’m a little suspicious of the idea that things with “chilling consequences” should be punished. A lot of free speech has chilling consequences to someone. Focus on the deeds.
And motivation is based on the identity of the intended victim.
All people are equal. Treat them that way.
Sorry to run off, but I really should go now.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
This is a lie.
It’s a lie because of what Bjartmarr posted here:
In other words, it’s entirely motivation.
Please acknowledge this or offer some kind of evidence to the contrary.
Clear, black and white, no weasel-words, evidence.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Myca, you have an interesting definition of “lie.”
If the motivation is to hurt someone because of the group they belong to, the motivation is defined by the target. It’s not the simple desire to hurt someone. It’s the desire to hurt someone of a particular group. A hate crime has to be aimed at someone who is of a different religion, “race”, sexual orientation, etc. Without an intended victim of a particular group, there’s no hate crime. Hurting someone who’s not in the group the hate criminal thought doesn’t change that. The point is the intended victim. That’s why the two cases I just mentioned weren’t prosecuted as hate crimes; the prosecutors decided that trying to prove a “hate” motive would be difficult.
And, really, you also have an interesting definition of “weasel-words.” Just saying.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Oh, to be sure. But you’re still avoiding my question. Since this is the third time I’ve asked it, I’ll put it in bold so you can see it better: Why do you insist that proponents prove that hate-crime punishments “work”, but fail to insist that proponents prove that bank-robbing punishments “work”?
If you want to spend some time thinking about this question and give an actual answer, I’ll consider responding to the rest of your points. As it is, though, it doesn’t seem like you’re listening. I’m not big on talking to brick walls, so I’ll stop here.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
No, it’s pretty much the standard one.
As long as you claim that these laws threat different victims unequally, I will continue to point out that this is a fabrication that you are utterly unable to back up with evidence.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Man, there’s nothing like saying I’m avoiding a question to make me come back.
We know that if you made bank robbing legal, more people would rob banks. I sure would.
But beating people and killing people is already illegal. It should stay illegal. The people who are deterred by its illegality are already deterred by its illegality; making something extra illegal because you’re beating or killing particular people does not seem to have an extra effect.
Myca, you’re making up definitions, which gets kind of silly. To lie, I have to actually, you know, not tell the truth, and that’s really boring. I’m saying what I believe. I may be wrong, but I still believe it.
And if you really think you can have a hate crime without considering the intended victim, okay.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Will: Myca, you have an interesting definition of “lie.”
Actually, there is a difference between the word “lie’ and the word “weasel.”
A “weasel” is when one uses cherry picked facts in order to mislead.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Julie, so you know of studies that say hate crime laws are effective? I would be very grateful for a link.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Bjartmarr
Further applying the above reasoning (and demonstrating a flaw in the second paragraph above): Should a person mugging and assaulting joggers be convicted of a hate crime if other joggers become fearful and either change jogging parks, or quit jogging altogether? Certainly a rash of jogger muggings could have a real “chilling effect” on other joggers could it not?
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
This is really exasperating. Name me something that is defined as hate crime where the “hate” at stake is not something connected to the past and/or present systemic, systematic and insitutionalized, legally enshrined/expressed/enacted oppression of the group of people the notion of a hate crime is supposed to protect; where, in fact, that institutionalized, systemic and systematic hatred actually made it okay to, for example, beat someone up or even kill her or him for being lesbian or gay, or Black, or Jewish. The “hate” in hate crime is not about the fact that I might, for entirely personaly reasons, despise joggers; the “hate” in hate crime is about the ways in which society/culture has been organized to express hatred towards specific groups of people by oppressing them.
I am not making any claims that hate crimes “work,” in the sense of deterring the crimes they are used to punish. I don’t know whether they do. But I think, at the very least, if the conversation about whether they are necessary is going to be honest and productive, we need to acknowledge that there is a good deal more at stake than one person’s personal hatred of, say, bakers whose chocolate cookies are just not chocolate enough.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“In my experience, when someone gives you two choices, you want the third one. Maybe that’s part of the reason I want laws to be as simple as possible—and judges to have discretion in interpreting them.”
Hmm? Are hate crime laws good or bad? Is there a ‘third one’ about this?
Again, you’re being tellingly evasive.
“If the only bad thing someone has done is kill someone, the charge should be about killing someone. What you think about Al Qaida is your business.”
Again, this could potentially be a weasel statement, if you redefined a terrorist motivated attack by jihadists on all of America as having done more than ‘only [one] bad thing’, while the same sort of politically motivated hate crime against a particular subgroup in America is just that.
Yes or no to my earlier question. I’ll repost it again:
“will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda.”
I think your unwillingness to answer this question straight up is telling me all I need to know. But that doesn’t mean I’ll let you off the hook.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
@Larry:
Now that’s just stupid. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question anyways.
To answer your question, yes, in the totally ridiculously bizarre case where the intimidation such a jogger could reasonably be expected to feel approached the intimidation that a gay person could reasonably be expected to feel…then yes, then hate crime legislation would be appropriate.
Fortunately, we wouldn’t need hate crime legislation then, because worldwide injustice would disappear under the aegis of the ten billion gay police-monkeys flying out of my ass.
(Amp, if you’re reading this, could you draw a cartoon?)
OK, your turn to answer one. What kind of drugs does one need to smoke in order to think that running around a park is like being gay? And where the heck do you buy them?
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Sylphhead, the “weasel” evasion from people who don’t have evidence that hate crimes laws do any good is beginning to seem like rank hypocrisy, so I’ll get blunter: You’re saying, “Two plus one. Come on, don’t weasel. Is it one or is it two? Quit evading.”
Hate crime laws are bad. People should be treated equally. If someone kills someone, sentence them for killing someone. Period. I don’t care if they’re a member of Al Quaida or the NRA or PETA. Sentence them for what they do, not what they think.
I honestly don’t know where you’re seeing weasel in that. A deed is a deed. A thought is a thought. Hate crimes confuse these things by changing the punishment based on the identity of the intended victim.
Okay, maybe you’ll say that’s weaseling. So I’ll make this as simple as I possibly can: If a member of Al Quaida murders someone, sentence them for murder.
I think I’m done now. This “weasel” and “lie” nonsense from people who can’t defend what they say they want is nonsense. And, yes, the need to defend these laws is in your court. You’re the one who wants hate crime laws, whether or not they’re effective.
I want everyone treated equally. So you can either stop weaseling, or you can explain why hate crime laws are effective and therefore should be on the books, adding time and expense to the criminal justice system.
Or you can join me in saying that a person is a person, and a murder is a murder, and an assault is an assault, and no one should be treated differently under the law.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
P.S. Yes, the tone of the previous message may be affected by the fact it’s our anniversay and Emma and I shared a bottle of champagne. Don’t read it as too annoyed; I am astonishingly tolerant. But do read it is annoyed with nonsense words like “lie” and “weasel.” You do not win a discussion by saying, “I don’t care, you’re a liar and a weasel, nyah-nyah!” If all you have are opinions, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
will shetterly Writes:
October 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Julie, so you know of studies that say hate crime laws are effective? I would be very grateful for a link.
Julie Z: I would say that is a preposterous question when you know full well that it shouldn’t matter if hate laws are effective or not, because no one is hurt by the mere existence of a hate crime law and there is a good reason for a deterrent to be there if nothing more than to make an attacker think twice. There is proof that adding more time in prison for robbery with a gun than without a gun works to a certain degree and any degree is a great help. Why would you not want to see any assistance for the discouragement of a hate crime?
You are trying to establish that there is no difference in how law should applied to heterosexuals and GLBT people, but you are being oblivious to the fact that there is a difference and that difference is why GLBT people are attacked for something that heterosexuals are not attacked for. The reality exists that GLBT people are in more danger when visible and more socially susceptible to attack and crimes committed against us, therefore, we need more of a deterrent.
When I came back to this thread I saw a common theme coming from you, which is that a crime of violence is a crime of violence and that there should not be any difference in punishment for what the reason behind the crime is. But your premise is flawed in that the act of violence toward people with any other sexual orientation other than heterosexual is more frequent and no bigotry and hate exists for those that are heterosexual in that regard. Your oversimplified view on this matter has been logically and factually defeated, must you go on?
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Julie, laws cost time and money. *Everyone* is hurt by ineffective laws.
We have deterrents against killing and beating people. They’re laws about murder and assault.
But since I have been logically and factually defeated without any evidence at all from you, sure, I’ll stop.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I’m uninterested in going over the mistakes you’ve repeated ad nauseum over and over again for the umpteenth time. I only have this to say. There was nothing impossible or difficult about my question - the parallels between terrorism and hate crime are obvious and have been pointed out repeatedly. If you’re against additional prosecution for the political motivation behind a crime, then you must be against hate crime and counterterrorism legislation. If you believe the legal arm needs this extra weapon, you’ll be for both, like I am. If you believe that the comparison is unfair, barbed, or backhanded, that’s only because you care about one set of victims but couldn’t care less about the other.
Nevertheless, I’m satisfied that you’ve answered in the affirmative. Why it took so long, I won’t pontificate further.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Everyone, please tone it down a couple of notches.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Sylphhead, you first asked the question in #138. I answered it in #139: “Someone who murders should be charged with murder, regardless of the motive. Punish the crime, not the thought.” I didn’t realize then that you needed a “yes” or a “no” in addition to what that clearly and unambiguously implied. Do note that there were no weasel words there, and no escape clauses. That was an absolute statement. You just seemed to assume that I loved legalism as much as you. I hadn’t realized anyone on this board would be in favor of extending the over-reach of the Bush administration, but I live and learn.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Will, “tone it back a few notches” means not saying “You just seemed to assume that I loved legalism as much as you.”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Oh, man, I can’t say, “But they started it!”
*g*
Fair enough. Sorry about that. Apologies from Myca and Sylphhead for “lies” and “weaseling” would be nice, but not necessary. Let me try again. Sylphhead wrote, “the legal arm needs this extra weapon.” I do not think the law needs any “extra” weapons. Everyone should be treated equally.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Everyone is treated equally, and you have presented zero evidence to the contrary, no matter how often you are asked to provide it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:31 am
And I use the word lie deliberately.
If you continue to make unsupported statements that we have shown (multiple times) to be false, I will continue to use the word.
There is virtue in calling something what it is.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Myca, if I hurt someone because I want to, I will get one sentence. If I hurt someone because I think he or she is part of a group covered by hate crimes laws, I will get an additional sentence. Same deed, same degree of premeditation, yet a different sentence. That is not equality before the law.
Sometimes, the law will have trouble deciding whether to apply hate crimes. See the Megan Williams case and the Christian-Newsome case. Why should the law waste time and money trying to decide whether to pursue hate crime charges? The usual charges for hurting humans are more than sufficient to address what happened.
Yes, I hear the argument that it is worse to “send a message of terrorism” to a smaller community than to the general public, but I think that’s a distraction: sane people want violent people caught, no matter who they’re targeting and what their reasoning is. People have been killed because they were misidentified as child molesters. Should the person who intended to kill a child molester be charged with a hate crime?
As for your lying charges, you do realize that by your logic, I get to say you are a liar, because you have nothing to show that hate crime laws are effective?
Now, you may say that you simply like the idea of hate crime laws because they make you feel good, whether they’re effective or not. No one would question that. Otherwise, please offer evidence that hate crime laws are effective.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I’ve not made the claim that they’re effective. I’ve got no evidence either way.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Myca, way back in 14: “The reason I favor hate crimes legislation, Sailorman, is that I think a hate crime does more harm to society than the same crime committed without the hate-based component.”
If you don’t know whether they’re effective or not, then how can you favor them as a solution to the problem? If you think hate crimes do more harm to society than other crimes, then it seems like you would want something effective.
If you don’t know that the remedy is effective, and you still want the remedy, then aren’t you just posing?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
The question is ‘effective in what way’?
If we’re talking effective as a deterrent, then I’ve got no evidence either way, just as I have no evidence that life in prison is a more effective deterrent for murder than 50 years in prison.
If we’re talking effective at punishing greater harms more harshly, then it’s self-evidently effective, just as life in prison is a self-evidently harsher punishment then 50 years in prison.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:31 am
So, Myca, you simply want greater punishment for attacking some people than other people, and you don’t care whether that greater punishment makes anyone any safer?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
He didn’t say he didn’t care, he said he didn’t know.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Certainly I care, and I would hope that the greater punishment serves as a greater deterrent, I just don’t have info one way or the other.
But if you’re attacking the concept that punishing a greater harm more harshly is proper (as you are), then you’ve got bigger fish than hate crimes legislation to fry. You can start with the entire collected criminal code of all western nations.
Let me know when you’re done.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Will, Myca has said a dozen times over that he doesn’t consider it to be “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
I think the “lie” language is a bit strong, but I do think that you’re either stubbornly refusing to make a good-faith acknowledgment of Myca’s argument (which doesn’t mean agreeing with it), or you have a severe reading comprehension problem.
Also, I genuinely don’t understand why punishing someone for shooting a cop more than for shooting a grocer, more for shooting a grocer than for punching someone to death in a bar fight, and more for a preplanned murder than an spur of the moment murder, could not also be described as “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Myca, you may want to evade this, but there’s a single issue in this thread: are hate crime laws effective?
Amp, I’m beginning to think this is an issue that has more to do with faith than logic. Myca keeps saying that hate crime laws aren’t a form of special treatment, but Myca cannot deny and has not denied that to have a hate crime, you have to consider the intended victim. When I point that out, Myca says nothing or repeats that it’s the motivation, even though the motivation is based on the intended victim.
I also think it’s wrong to punish someone more for killing a cop than a human. I think the idea of extra penalties are silly in every case: who says, “I think I’ll kill a cop; I’ll only get twenty years. Oh, I’ll get forty? Well, I guess I won’t kill a cop then.”
Something people seem to have trouble understanding: premeditation only means you planned to commit a crime. It has nothing to do with the intended victim; it’s only about the intent to do something illegal. It establishes that the action was neither accidental nor impulsive. Hate crimes focus on the intended victim; I believe they can be applied to impulsive or premeditated acts.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
(bolding mine)
No, there’s not.
Effectiveness as a deterrent is not the only function of criminal law.
I know that you would like that to be the only thing anyone takes into account, but as I said, there is a rich tradition of punishing greater harms more harshly, whether or not the greater punishment serves as a greater deterrent.
Hate crimes exist as a consistent part of the canon of western criminal law. If you don’t like the way the entire canon works, that’s fine, but at least be consistent and apply whatever principles you’re using across the board.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:27 am
FTR, on this issue, it does seem like Will is being pretty consistent. I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t ready to throw out the western canon of law and start again.
Hell, I might want to do that, too, given my druthers. I’d sure be interested in reading what Will’s idea of an ideal legal system is.
(Do you write utopic fiction? Should I be buying some? I don’t even know what your most recent book was about, which is a horrible confession.)
*
(For the record, as I don’t have my druthers, and the rest of the canon exists, I personally believe that people who suffer from hate crimes have as much right to protection as the other people who have been protected by our inadequate canon of laws.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Well, sure, maybe . . . but then we should also be asking how the concept of sentencing solely for deterrence applies to every other criminal law on the books.
I mean . . . hey, under this system, what punishment would we give to accidental death cases, where the point is that it’s accidental? No punishment at all? After all, keep in mind that it’s likely no law would have a deterrent effect.
Would we even bother trying pedophiles? Their crimes carry a disturbingly high recidivism rate, regardless of punishment, so there’s no point in punishing them at all, I’d guess.
Not to mention that we’d quickly enter a situation where life in prison for shoplifting is a greater deterrent than probation . . . but differing punishments seem to have no deterrent effect at all on a crime of passionate murder (purely as an example).
Our current system balances these conflicting cases, and does so imperfectly . . . but certainly better than just taking one component of the law and pretending that it’s the end-all be-all.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Also, I think that a big part of why we’re seeing this kind of requirement (”hate crimes don’t count unless they have a deterrent effect”) when it comes to hate crime legislation and not seeing it when it comes to anything else is that it’s another case of minorities being subject to requirements and justifications that the majority never has to deal with.
It’s the whole “when did you first realize you were heterosexual” issue again, in other words.
It’s fine to punish a greater harm more when the victim is a straight white man, but when the victim is black, or gay or female, then there are a bunch of other hoops to jump through, which is typical.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am
“Would we even bother trying pedophiles? Their crimes carry a disturbingly high recidivism rate”
I’m pretty sure this is one of those resilient myths that won’t die.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Ooh, damn. Am I wrong about that? It may well be just (wrong) received wisdom. Do you have numbers?
In any case, I hope you take my point, which is that there are likely to be certain crimes and criminals for whom laws have little or no deterrent effect, and if we’re basing our criminal laws entirely on deterrence, then there’s not much we can really do with them.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Pedophiliac criminals have high recidivism rates.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Or why, since we’re talking about pedophilia, punishing someone more for groping a toddler than for groping her mother could not also be described as “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Replying roughly in order to the comments:
Myca, you can ignore effectiveness if you want, but I sure don’t want to wander from this topic to “the entire collected criminal code of all western nations.” I’m not interested in punishment for the sake of punishment; that’s something torturers do. I’m only concerned with making people safer. We can look at seat belt laws and see that they make people safer; therefore, I support them. If you have evidence that hate crime laws make people safer, let’s see it.
Mandolin, my last explicitly political book was Chimera, a right-libertarian dystopia. Two earlier books, Elsewhere and Nevernever, are anarchistic.
Myca, do you know of any other crime in which there’s an extra sentence based on the intended victim? Off-hand, I don’t. So my objection is that no matter what anyone thinks of the existing system, within that system, hate crime laws are extra punishment based on the criminal’s thoughts rather than the criminal’s deeds.
I’ll try one last example:
Someone might read a few of my books, notice that I usually have sympathetic gay characters, and decide that I am gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
Someone else might read some of my comments, notice that I think hate crime laws are a form of thought crime laws, and decide that I am anti-gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
In the first case, the killer would face hate crime sentencing. In the second, the killer would not. I would be just as dead. The only difference is that the sentence would be greater in the first case.
Would the additional hate crime sentence deter anyone else from a similar killing? No.
Would it cost more money for the legal system and the tax payer? Yes.
Would Emma feel any better about my death under one scenario than the other? I doubt it.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Myca, do you know of any other crime in which there’s an extra sentence based on the intended victim?
Sure. You’ve already claimed about one–killing a police officer (which you imply is not the same as ‘killing a human’). Statutory rape laws apply to the victim’s age.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Myca, true. Rulers almost always have greater penalties for harming the people who implement their rule.
I didn’t mean that I thought cops aren’t human, though–sorry about the sloppiness there. I meant that different sentences create tiers of humanity. We are all humans, whether cops or gays or Armenians or Southern Baptists. The law should not discriminate.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Sure. Child molestation carries a different penalty than the same actions with an adult.
What I am saying is that broadly across “the entire collected criminal code of all western nations,” deterrence has not ever been the solitary goal of punishment, and the litmus test you propose would invalidate not just hate crimes but such an incredibly broad spectum of our criminal code so as to require rewriting the whole damn thing.
Hate crimes are not a new or unusual concept in western law, and are, in fact, a natural extension of existing concepts.
1) Western law (as I pointed out both in comment #189 and several paragraphs ago, and as Mythago and Ampersand have pointed out extensively) already imposes different penalties depending on who your victim is.
2) Western law already penalizes criminals more harshly for a more damaging result, even when their overt action was the same.
Now, you may not like that, and you’re within your rights not to, but to attack Hate Crime Legislation as if it’s an exception to the norm rather than being precisely the kind of thing we’ve been doing all along is disingenuous.
If you think we need to rewrite all of our laws to meet your standards, say so.
If you think that we just need to look at hate crimes, then that’s pretty disturbing.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Myca, adults and children have different legal status. I think that’s right.
I think it’s wrong to give different legal status to different kinds of adults.
Out of curiosity, what crimes do you think would be eliminated if the criteria was not making people safer? Remember that I believe in legalizing and regulating sex work and drug use.
Hate crime laws are only a few decades old.
1. What victims besides figures of authority like cops and soldiers usually result in harsher sentences?
2. Yes, some countries have laws against bad thoughts. Many people consider that a bad thing.
Out of curiosity, do you know how many countries have hate crime laws?
And your last sentence is just weird. All hate crimes are *already* crimes. Remove the hate crime penalty, and there’s still a legal consequence for killing or attacking someone. Can you name one hate crime that would not be a crime if you got rid of hate crime legislation?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
@Will:
Yeah? So what do I need to say to get you to quit avoiding the question?
Hint: I don’t think you understand the question in the first place, since you keep answering different questions instead. The question I posed had to do with why one group should have to prove something, while another group shouldn’t have to prove something. A proper answer is likely to start with, “I think that proponents of hate crime penalties should have to prove their effectiveness because…” and should also include the phrase, “I think that proponents of bank robbing penalties should not have to prove their effectiveness because…”.
Another hint: The best way for you to get out of answering the above question (which, AFAIK, does not have a non-bigoted answer) is to say, “While I think that all laws should have to pass a “Does it work?” test before being enacted, I realize that the world doesn’t currently work that way. Therefore, requiring the test only for laws that are targeted at helping minorities is inherently anti-minority.”
Hint #3: If you currently feel the need to explain why one law or another does or doesn’t work, then you missed the point of the question again. If you currently feel the need to say, “People are the same, the law should treat them the same” again, then you REALLY missed the point of the question again.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Bjartmarr:
You win all of my prizes for being very right.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Awesome. Thanks.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
You know, I just happened across a post by Eugene Volokh regarding hate crimes and hate crime statistics. It’s an interesting read, and fairly short. Look here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1186001898.shtml
The comments aren’t especially valuable, unfortunately.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Okay, I have a couple on-topic things to say.
1) Will, thanks for hanging out despite getting a bit of a beating in the thread. Nevre fun to be in the minority.
2) I’m going to remind everyone that Will is one of these people with whom we, as liberals and anarchists and marxists and activists, agree on 90% of issues. Unfortunately, many of these entries in this blog happen to deal with the issues on which we do not agree because of this blog’s focus. And even so, because of the way that blog interaction (and to some extent, regular old normal human interaction) work, we’re much more likely to be focusing on areas of disagreement rather than agreement.
Barry points this out to me every time I get especially growly at Cheryl Seelhoff, who I find incredibly annoying. When I responded to her announcement of a bid for president with something like, “Well, I’m not voting for her,” Barry called me on my willingness to focus on Seelhoff’s transphobia to the exclusion of her other positions. I still don’t think I’d vote for her if she were, by miracle, a viable candidate (for reasons including, but not limited to transphobia), but I think Barry’s point was really good, and I’d like to think that if we met in person Ms. Seelhoff and I could focus on the vast majority of areas in which we want to help each other, instead of the tiny minority of ways in which were diametrically and angrily opposed.
3) I can’t read this thread with Will’s eyes because I disagree with him, but I have argued alongside him on subjects when we agree, and find that he is smart and incisive. With my own eyes, I don’t totally understand why he took so long to say “Yes, I’m against laws that add penalties because the perpetrator is a terrorist or the victim is a cop” — but I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s because we’re trying to argue against him as if he were a conservative, or a moderate liberal, and not against his actual position. I think we’re making assumptions about what he thinks based on what other interlocutors we’ve had to deal with on the issue think. From his actual position, I’m going to assume “Of course you don’t add special status to police” is a duh.
4) I really don’t mean to smack anyone else on the nose, either, because from the position in which we’re arguing “weasel words” and “lie” feel very reasonable, and it’s hard for us to see where Will isn’t seeing that. I don’t think anyone’s said anything wrong to this point. I just want to call for a slight shift in the conversation (This isn’t a moderator call — two of the other primary speakers are moderators. This is a personal call for reframing, which you can feel free to ignore or make faces at.)
5) One reason that I’m posting this now is that I feel relatively excited. It seems to me that this thread has wound to a point where we’ve come up with a new argument in favor of hate crimes (within the current system), one I don’t remember reading before. I doubt it will have much effect on Will –who is in favor of radical restructurement of government, if I read him correctly, and who has little investment in the state of laws as they exist. But I think it’s f*ing rock solid against the average conservative or moderate liberal who we have to deal with on this issue. I feel like we got here partially because we’re talking to Will, whose position is relatively unique among visitors here, since his marxist (I apologize if I’m using the wrong term here) analysis leaves basically no room for race. Of course, it’s obvious the ways in which I vehemently disagree with his analysis, but I think it’s really fascinating how his presence has shaped the conversation, which leads me back to point one, now reiterated:
6) Will, thanks for hanging out, even reluctantly. I know it wasn’t fun, but I learned something from the discussion, and I appreciate it.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
My source for low pedophilia recidivism rates (compared to other crimes) is a book that’s back in California, so I can’t pull out the cite.
Instead, here’s a large segment of an article written by Ed Koch in Real Clear Politics on October 3:
I can’t get the mayo clinic link that Robert provided to open on my computer, so I can’t access or respond to its claims.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Google “pedophilia recidivism” and it’s the first link.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
The problem was more along the lines of “crashed my browser.” :-\
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I also think it’s worth pointing out that the same is true of other folks we habitually disagree with here. Daran, for one.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
will shetterly Writes:
October 18th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Oh, man, I can’t say, “But they started it!”
*g*
Fair enough. Sorry about that. Apologies from Myca and Sylphhead for “lies” and “weaseling” would be nice, but not necessary. Let me try again. Sylphhead wrote, “the legal arm needs this extra weapon.” I do not think the law needs any “extra” weapons.
Everyone should be treated equally.
Well, until homosexuals are “treated equally” in society, respected equally in society, and are equally threatened by violence in society, in other words, when heterosexuals are threatened as much as we are with violence because of what their sexual orientation is, you can’t say that. We aren’t treated equally under the law in the first place. When it comes to violence the scale is tilted toward us, but for some reason you don’t want see a need for creating a balance or an equalizer, even if the equalizer just gives me the chance to say to an attacker
“THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST YOUR GAY BASHING AND HATEFUL VIOLENCE AGAINST GLBT PEOPLE AND IF YOU ATTACK ME YOU WILL PAY THE EXTRA PRICE!”
Whew! That made me feel safer just saying that! But you don’t care about that bit of discouragement I might have to stay alive with, do you, Will?
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
It’s not how often we agree, it’s what we agree on. I don’t really care if somebody agrees with me on 90% of issues if the remaining 10% on which we disagree are very important. Of course we don’t all have to agree on everything, but to me, if that 10% disagreement is on the best mechanism for infrastructure maintenance, that’s hella different than if that 10% disagreement is over whether people are truly human if they’re not white.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Bjartmarr:
1. Do you really mean I should prove that bank robbing laws are effective before we can discuss whether hate crime laws are effective?
1.a. Since you think extra penalties are useful, would people be less likely to rob banks if there was a “bank hatred law” that could be added to the crime?
2. I do believe ineffective laws are a waste of time, and have said as much.
3. I believe you are making your statements from faith.
Mandolin,
3. It’s because I thought my first statement said that. I didn’t realize people also wanted the “yes” or the “no.” I thought my statement only allowed for one interpretation, and if there’s only one interpretation, there’s no weaseling possible.
5. a. While I would like a radical restructuring of society, my distaste for hate crimes, thought crimes, and unequal treatment of people under the law applies to our existing society.
b. I don’t deny racism, but I look for classism first. Other people look for racism first. If classism explains everything, I don’t add extra charges. If classism does not, as in Jena 6, I agree that there’s racism at work.
6. Always glad to participate in a discussion where people are engaging in the subject!
Julie, there are already laws against beating and killing people. I will repeat my request: Where is the evidence that adding hate crime laws to the charges that already apply will make anyone safer?
I think some people are mixing the logic behind affirmative action with the logic behind hate crimes. Affirmative action helps groups that have been discriminated against. I approve of this. There is plenty of evidence that it’s effective.
But hate crime laws simply add extra penalties to things that are already crimes. No one has yet offered any evidence that those extra penalties make anyone safer.
mythago, it’s precisely because I believe everyone is human that I want all humans treated equally under the law.
Okay. Enough from me. Folks are welcome to answer, but if I don’t reply, it just means I feel I can’t rephrase the situation in any meaningful way.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Sure.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I actually don’t remember the conversation about Cheryl going quite like you describe it, Mandolin; I had recalled the issue about Cheryl running for President being that she’s kind of a jerk, not that she’s transphobic.
I think that not voting for a candidate because she’s transphobic is a perfectly reasonable position. What’s sad is that probably all the candidates for president are transphobes of one sort or another, so if you’re going to vote at all, there’s not really a non-transphobic option.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 6:49 am
A P.S. to Bjartmarr: I don’t think I should let this go unaddressed: “The best way for you to get out of answering the above question (which, AFAIK, does not have a non-bigoted answer)”
Suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is giving a bigoted answer is like saying anyone who does not support burning pedophiles alive must want to rape children. It’s the logic of the White House’s resident: support spying and torture, or you are on the side of the terrorists.
The question is simple: where is the evidence that hate crime laws make people safer?
And I suppose there is a related question: if you believe the most effective laws are the harshest ones, why not have the death penalty for everything that’s illegal?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Will, what Bjartmarr (and I, in passing) were asking is why your test for hate crimes requires a deterrent effect, but you’re not applying a similar test to (for example) laws against bank robbery.
If only hate crime legislation must pass this test, then Bjartmarr is right in calling your position bigoted.
Of course, feel free to prove me wrong by providing links to the doubtless many places you’ve spent time railing for effectiveness tests for laws against murder, assault, shoplifting, armed robbery, etc . . .
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Myca, I’ve already said that I’m against all ineffective and all redundant laws. I mentioned drug use and sex work as examples of behavior that should be legalized and regulated. I noted earlier a redundant penalty that I oppose: The charge for attacking a cop and for attacking anyone else should be the same.
If you struck down bank robbing laws, it would become legal to rob banks. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no redundancy at work there.
But if you struck down hate crime laws, it would still be illegal to hurt GLBT folks, as well as folks of other races, religions, etc. because ASSAULTING AND MURDERING PEOPLE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL Hate crime laws simply add an extra penalty based on the intended victim.
The question is not whether having bank robbing laws stop people from robbing banks. The question is whether the redundancy of hate crime laws help stop people from committing “hate crimes”.
Again, if you just like the idea of greater punishment based on the intended victim, say so. I disagree because I believe the law should treat everyone equally.
Well, at some point, I’m just going to have to drop out of this discussion, because I think you believe laws are a more useful way to address social problems than I do.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I think the mistake you’re making is in imagining that I think of these things in a binary, ‘either legal or illegal’ way.
There are degrees of punishment, and it’s worth asking whether a lesser punishment would have the same deterrent effect as a greater one. But, of course, you’re not asking those questions, except in one case.
The fact that you want to use an effectiveness test when it comes to hate crimes but not when it comes to other crimes (”The question is not whether having bank robbing laws stop people from robbing banks.”) says a lot about your mindset.
As I asked before, and as I’ll ask one last time . . . please show me where (if ever) you’ve spent time requiring other laws to meet the same litmus test you’re requiring hate crimes to meet.
It’s that ’special’ test that Bjartmarr finds bigoted, and I agree.
Ah, yes. Treating everyone equally. Your law, Will, in its majestic equality, prohibits rich and poor alike from begging on the streets and sleeping under bridges.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Okay, Myca. You’ve been ignoring a lot of what I’ve written, so it’s way past time to stop. I shall try very hard to make this my last post:
“There are degrees of punishment, and it’s worth asking whether a lesser punishment would have the same deterrent effect as a greater one. But, of course, you’re not asking those questions, except in one case.”
Read what I’ve written in this thread about cops, the drug war, and sex work laws. What you have just said is what you call a lie.
“The fact that you want to use an effectiveness test when it comes to hate crimes but not when it comes to other crimes (”The question is not whether having bank robbing laws stop people from robbing banks.”) says a lot about your mindset.”
Read what I’ve written. You brought up the bank robbing analogy, but it’s a false analogy. You refuse to acknowledge that hate crime laws are in addition to existing laws, not instead of existing laws.
“As I asked before, and as I’ll ask one last time . . . please show me where (if ever) you’ve spent time requiring other laws to meet the same litmus test you’re requiring hate crimes to meet.”
Extra penalties for cops. Drug laws. Sex crime laws. I’ve said this many times in many ways: Ineffective laws are not good laws. They are expensive. They only appeal to people who enjoy the idea that criminals are suffering.
“It’s that ’special’ test that Bjartmarr finds bigoted, and I agree.”
So everyone who does not agree with your solutions to a problem is a bigot? I wish I had realized this much sooner, because it would have saved us both a lot of time.
Out of curiosity, who do you think was the bigot, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King? They had different solutions. Or when Malcolm X became El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and changed his views, did he stop being a bigot, or did he become one?
“Ah, yes. Treating everyone equally. Your law, Will, in its majestic equality, prohibits rich and poor alike from begging on the streets and sleeping under bridges.”
I quote Anatole France, too. But that’s not my law. I have often noted where the law fails. The drug war, for example, has a clear racial bias. Making assumptions about my views on other subjects based on my beliefs about hate crime laws only shows that you like to make assumptions.
And besides, I’m a socialist. I’m very concerned about the rich and poor. The subject in this thread is whether hate crime laws are good. I say there’s no evidence that they’re effective, and they discriminate based on the victim, so they’re bad. You say you like them, but you don’t say why they’re good.
And that’s probably as good a place to stop as any.
Will
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am
O.K. Will said something that I’m not sure was addressed:
Someone might read a few of my books, notice that I usually have sympathetic gay characters, and decide that I am gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
Someone else might read some of my comments, notice that I think hate crime laws are a form of thought crime laws, and decide that I am anti-gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
In the first case, the killer would face hate crime sentencing. In the second, the killer would not. I would be just as dead. The only difference is that the sentence would be greater in the first case.
So should a hate crime statute provide special protection to one specific set of beliefs regarding sexual orientation, or should it apply equally to any crime committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived attitude towards sexual orientations?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Sure we can: everyone should be treated equally. I’ll acknowledge some need for occasional exceptions. But I don’t think homosexuality is one of them.
This is true, but sort of a non sequitur in this thread, don’t you think? Hate crimes are CRIMINAL penalties, and the criminal laws don’t discriminate against homosexuals the way that civil laws and regulations (e.g. marriage laws) do.
Hate crime legislation will do absolutely nothing to cure those civil disparities.
yes (not legally, but practically speaking)
Say it? Sure. But of course you’re not just SAYING that, you’re asking that it be backed up by the full force of the U.S. Government.
So if you mean “do we think you should be able to say that and have it be true:” No, i do not.
I’m not Will. But do I care about you? [shrug] Sure–as much or as little as anyone else I don’t know. I care about all criminal victims, and I care about all accused defendants. I heartily support many methods to reduce crimes against all (or portions) of our society, including some methods specifically targeted to reduce crimes against gay people or groups. I just don’t support this one.
You are trying to phrase the issue as “support hate crime legislation or I will be beaten up!” I resent that framing, because it’s a false choice.
There are MANY ways to provide you protection from being beaten up OTHER than hate crime legislation. It’s as invalid as if I said “either support warrantless searches or admit that you want terrorists to kill us all.”
Myca, regarding other crimes, you seem to have a core argument that if we dislike quality A about a new idea, we can’t/shouldn’t support existing structures which possess quality A.
Am I correct?
Because while that’s an interesting response, it’s also a bit of a sound bite. Explaining why it might be acceptable in certain cases to focus on deterrence, while in other cases we focus on perceived deterrence, while in other cases we focus on punitive issues, or a combination… do you seriously expect someone to explain the justification for all of the criminal code, and each and every bite with which they disagree?
In any case, it’s a bit disingeneous. We are discussing hate crime legislation, right? Not other criminal legislation.
So: what evidence is there that it actually works?
And if there’s no or limited evidence that it actually works, what basis do we have to believe it would work, rather than not work?
And in a general sense, should we support new legislation based on such a belief?
I find it exceedingly odd that some folks here don’t appear to see the difference between a new legislative act and an existing one, with years of precedent. Different mindsets, I suppose. But the simple answer to this question:
Because those two groups are disssimilar in a significant way. For example, I think it is perfectly reasonable to treat “existing legislation” and “proposed legislation” as two disparate categories. Why do you disagree?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Myca wrote:
I don’t think this is a fair test.
1) Will is only one person. It’s not reasonable to expect him to give equal time to every issue.
I do think it’s reasonable to apply this sort of analysis to society as a whole, or to huge organizations that cover an entire issue area thoroughly. Possibly it’s also a fair analysis to apply to folks who comment on issues full-time, like pundits and Senators.
But to apply this logic to critiquing ordinary individuals implies that if I want to speak out on issue “A” because it’s unfair, then I must also speak out on issues “B C D E F G H I and J” which are unfair in the same manner, or be branded a hypocrite.
2) Hate crimes are controversial in a way those other crimes are not. This means that there are two legitimate reasons Will might talk more about hate crimes than other areas. First, because they’re talked about more, they simply come up in conversation more. Second, because unlike the laws regarding different kinds of murder, robbery etc., there’s some chance that speaking out against hate laws might actually contribute to making it less likely they’ll be enacted.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Will is saying, but I think the critique you’ve set out against him here doesn’t hold water.
* * *
Will, if a well-designed study showed that hate crime laws do have a measurable deterrent effect, would that cause you to drop your opposition to hate crime laws?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Yeah, that’s probably a good point, on the one hand. It is unreasonable to say that unless you talk about X, Y, and Z, your comments on A, B, and C are worth disregarding.
On the other hand, I think that a big part (in fact the huge, majority part) of why hate crime legislation is ‘controversial’ in the first place is because of racism, sexism, and homophobia . . . so I think it gets held to standards no other law, proposed or passed (and hate crimes have been established law in the US for almost 40 years) gets held to.
I think it’s worth examining that double standard.
It’s like the folks who will rant on end about how they ‘don’t have a problem with gay people, they just wish they weren’t so blatant about it in public.’ I’m not sure it’s out of line to ask them how often they rant the same rant about straight folks kissing in public or whatever.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Wow.
In my fifteen-odd years on the internet, I have never had someone twist my words quite that stupendously before. Congratulations, you win first prize.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:09 am
RonF, thanks for bringing that up. I’m always glad to assume silence means the people arguing with me realize that I have triumphed (*g*), but I would prefer to hear, “Darn, you’re right,” or “I disagree because….”
Sailorman, much agreement. An additional question for Julie: Why would saying, ““THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST YOUR GAY BASHING AND HATEFUL VIOLENCE AGAINST GLBT PEOPLE AND IF YOU ATTACK ME YOU WILL PAY THE EXTRA PRICE!” give you any more protection than saying, ““THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST VIOLENCE AND IF YOU ATTACK ME YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE!”?
Amp, yep to “Will, if a well-designed study showed that hate crime laws do have a measurable deterrent effect, would that cause you to drop your opposition to hate crime laws?” I’m a libertarian democratic socialist. That means I balance my libertarianism with my socialism. It’s why I support seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws: they save lives and they save taxpayer dollars, and since the roads are paid for by the public, it’s proper for the public to set the rules.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Sailorman:
Hallelujah, you understood my question. :)
I don’t disagree that it’s reasonable to treat existing legislation and proposed legislation differently.
(The “bank robber” scenario may be confusing you a little, as it is indeed an existing law. The reason I used it was because trying to shift the focus away from laws that people disagree on (like prohibition and the death penalty) and towards laws that everybody agrees on (like bank robbery) in order to clarify that my objection wasn’t about whether Will does or does not like the law in question. I didn’t mean to imply that existing and proposed legislation must be treated the same way.)
My point is that we currently do not require that proponents of proposed legislation (of any kind) prove that it “work” in order to enact it. It might be a good idea to do so, but we don’t. Therefore, requiring that proponents of pro-minority legislation (but no-one else) prove that their laws “work”, is inherently anti-minority.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Myca, to help you understand where I’m coming from: I completely support gay marriage and have done so for as long as I can remember. Or, to be more precise, I think the state should not be marrying anyone; the state should be providing civil unions to adults of any sexual orientation. Only religious groups should marry people, and they should use their own rules of marriage without state interference. (I’m a unitarian universalist. UUs were the first church to marry GLBT folks. If, say, the Catholics want to be bigots about marriage in the Catholic church, that’s their business, so long as people are free to leave the Catholic church and marry elsewhere.)
Bjartmarr, you’re the one who wrote “The best way for you to get out of answering the above question (which, AFAIK, does not have a non-bigoted answer)…” If you didn’t mean to imply that anyone who did not answer it as you wished was a bigot, I am sorry, but that is what I inferred from your parenthetical. And, on looking at it again, it’s what still seems to be implied.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Bjartmarr, hate crime laws in the US began in 1969; see here. We’ve had them for a long, long time. But where’s the evidence that they help?
Effectiveness is one of the arguments people make when they pass laws. They may be wrong, but they consider effectiveness both when they start laws and when they end them. Note, for example, Prohibition. They tried it, it did not help, and they ended it.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I understand where you’re coming from, and it’s a position I basically share (I, too, am UU, as much as I identify with any religion). A lot of my negative reaction to your position on hate crimes has been because it’s sounded as if (for example) you were coming to the gay marriage issue and saying “I think the state should not be marrying anyone, therefore, I oppose gay marriage.”
I share the principle, but the fact is that the state does marry people, and to apply the ‘the state should not be marrying anyone’ principle to just this one situation and not the vast majority of cases is homophobic.
Similarly, on hate crimes, there are a number of principles which would make hate crimes unworkable, if they were applied across the board . . . but they’re not applied across the board. Across the board, deterrent effect has never been the litmus test for criminal law.
That’s my problem.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Myca, I like consistency. If the state is going to call the legal joining of adults “marriage,” yes, every adult should be able to marry freely. The reason I think it makes more sense to call what the state does “civil union” in every case (whether hetero unions, GLBT unions, or unions no one has imagined yet) is that increases the separation of church and state: the state gives civil unions; the church marries. Practically speaking, they are very different: the state’s union is purely about legal status. Separating the functions gives religious bigots less to argue about, and that’s always a good thing.
But with gay marriage, I would be content with either solution: everyone can “marry” freely under the state, or everyone can freely get “civil unions” under the state. The point in either case is full equality under the law.
As for the assumptions you’ve been making, well, that’s just because you’ve been making assumptions.
And you did notice my recent citation of Prohibition as being a very famous law that was repealed because it did not work? Effectiveness does matter.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
There have been recent controversies in the Chicago area over the last couple of years where the hate crime legislation that we have appears to be prosecuted asymmetrically. No, I don’t have cites, nor the time to dig them up, so treat this as anecdotal.
There are statutes on the books in Illinois which state that any crime where racial animus is a contributing factor is a hate crime. It quite properly defines racism as a scalar quantity, not a vector one; it doesn’t matter whether either the criminal or the victim is black or white. There were a couple of cases where a black perpetrator committed a crime against a white victim and various witnesses stated that the black perpetrator said things before and during the crime that showed racial hatred towards whites. However, the Chicago police and the prosecutors would not charge and prosecute it as a hate crime. These instances made the front page of the Chicago Tribune, and no satisfactory explanation was ever given by either the cops or the D.A.
So when I read the comment that Will made that I quoted, it piqued my interest. If a couple of gay guys beat up a straight guy on Halstead Street (a little versimilitude for the locals) and during the act one of them said “Damn breeder!”, would that be a hate crime under what you propose?
Is it proper to create hate crime legislation that creates a specific protected class? One that would make it a hate crime for a white man to beat up a black man while screaming “Damn n—-r”, but would not apply to a black man beating up a white man while yelling “Damn c—–r”? It seems to me that comments like Julie’s lean in that direction, although I don’t know if she meant to go that far.
And, would it be Constitutional?
Because to my mind, it is neither proper nor Constitutional for there to be laws making “HATEFUL VIOLENCE AGAINST GLBT PEOPLE” especially illegal, unless the laws equally protect straight people against hateful violence from GLBT people. The fact that the incidence of the latter may well be less than the former is immaterial, as that simply means that the penalties will be assessed in the proportion to which the problem occurs. It’s not a zero sum; all violence against GLBT people that can be shown to be based on animus towards their sexual orientation or practices would still fall under the coverage of the law regardless of how much such violence occurs against straight people.
Oh, and when it’s proposed that “GAY BASHING” be illegal, I hope that what’s meant is some form of physical violence; we’re not talking about a restriction on free speech here, are we?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
All I can say at this point is that any citizens that are more susceptible to attack, like GLBT people and police officers, should have an extra protection or discouragement thereof. It’s pretty obvious to me people care more about police officers than they do GLBT people in that both groups are more susceptible to attack, and it’s because people don’t really care. If your folks here that are against us having hate crimes laws that make it tougher on those that want to attack us, and I also consider any want for bringing violence to a certain group to be premeditated, fine, you just don’t care about GLBT people, I can accept that reality.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Julie, I’ll number these so they’ll be harder to skip:
1. You keep saying “protection,” but you haven’t offered any evidence that hate crime laws provide any. Wouldn’t you like to know whether “protection” is effective?
2. Since you like extra penalties for attacks on cops and GLBT people, are you satisfied with the current levels of extra penalties?
3. Do you think cops and GLBT folks should have the same additional laws, or should one group get more additional laws than the other? If so, which?
4. How many hierarchies do you want in the ways that the law values people?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Author: will shetterly
Comment:
Julie, I’ll number these so they’ll be harder to skip:
1. You keep saying “protection,” but you haven’t offered any evidence
that hate crime laws provide any. Wouldn’t you like to know whether
“protection” is effective?
Julie Z: And why is it so darned important to know that right now. We need it now, and you want to stand around speculating about whether it works or not while many are dying or being put in hospitals. Thanks for the help!
2. Since you like extra penalties for attacks on cops and GLBT people,
are you satisfied with the current levels of extra penalties?
Julie Z: Hell, I don’t care if they just CALL IT “extra penalties,” anything will help right now. You try living your life in “fear times ten” and we’ll see how much more extra penalties YOU want?
3. Do you think cops and GLBT folks should have the same additional
laws, or should one group get more additional laws than the other? If so,
which?
Julie Z: I think that because the police are even more of a target for being killed and because of their putting their lives at risk for your hide and mine that the penalty should be stiffer for killing a cop than a transwoman like myself.
4. How many hierarchies do you want in the ways that the law values
people?
Julie Z: It’s all about other groups having special or extra that bothers you, isn’t it, Will? Tell me something, Will, who is it that’s shooting at you and targeting you for violence? It sure ain’t no gay basher, KKK dude, a Nazi bigot, or a Bible thrasher, and for the cops, every gang banger and murderer on the street.
Oh well, after all, it’s not your problem, crack open a beer and turn on the tube, it’s football Sunday, it’s a wonderful life!
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
You seem to be resting on the same issue that people have recently addressed here. But In my opinion, it’s perfectly valid to have a “topic of dicussion” (hate crime laws) without being required to discuss every other related topic (other laws.)
Anti minority?
How the heck do I know which laws out of all laws I’d oppose and which I wouldn’t, seeing as we’re not talking about them? How do you get off on a claim that the defining thread of the laws which I (or anyone) like/dislike is minority status, especially since most people have given a variety of reasons OTHER than “we dislike minorities” to support their views against hate crimes?
Comment 218 isn’t fair in my opinion. But you are getting fairly close to suggesting that any dislike of hate crime laws is inherently anti-gay. And that’s simply ridiculous.
Perhaps I’m misreading you. Would you like to clarify your position a bit? Because if you plan to claim that I can’t disagree with you regarding hate crimes without being anti-minority, it’d be good to get that out in the open.
Are you incapable of seeing the pretty important difference between police officers and other people?
Just to name three differences out of many, police officers 1) occupying their status as volunteers; 2) are state agents; 3) are saddled with greater responsibilities to others than is the average citizen. We don’t give cops special protection because they’re better than “normal” people (feel free to become a police officer if you want those benefits). We give cops protection because we want people to be police officers.
Fuck you. Really. Fuck you.
Because unless I’m mistaken, you just accused me of “not caring” about a group of people who I DO care about, and who includes some of my closest family members and good friends.
Aaaand, you made that accusation just because you’re not able to convince me that you’re right about a topic on which reasonable people often disagree. Which… I don’t give a shit of you’re gay or not, but that is WAY over the line. SO fuck off.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Julie.
1. You do realize you just made Bush’s argument for the war on terror? Don’t worry about whether it’s effective. Don’t worry about whether it weakens individual freedom. Just do it, or you’re evil!
Oops. Just realized that might be a very weak argument with you. Do you support Bush’s War on Civil Liberties, er, Terrorism?
2.Well, when we couldn’t get fire insurance because the word was out that the Klan would burn down our home, I lived in a great deal of fear. But I don’t believe extra penalties for attacking or killing people who worked for civil rights would’ve made any of us safer.
And what I always admired about people like Quentin Crisp was that they didn’t let themselves live in “fear times ten.” Once you start thinking that way, you can never be “too safe.” You just get more afraid, and soon you’re living inside gated communities and fearing everyone who’s not just like you. (I don’t know if there are any GLBT gated communities, but it’s the next logical step for Log Cabin Republicans and other GLBT folk who are ruled by fear and can afford to buy a home.)
3. Do you want different levels of “protection” within the GLBT community? I could see an argument that society is least accepting of Ts, then Gs, then Ls, and then Bs, and the law should reflect that hierarchy. Would that make you feel safer?
4. Actually, it was the KKK that put the word out they would burn us down. They never showed up, but we still couldn’t get fire insurance, and I still remember the phoned-in death threats and Dad showing me how to carry the shotgun to him if he needed it.
I have been beaten and called a faggot, but the exact expression of it was “hippie-faggot,” if I remember correctly. Still, being beaten and not knowing whether you’ll be killed isn’t fun.
A teacher made me sit out recess in the hot sun because I told her I didn’t know who made the earth and I didn’t care. Not much of a psychological scar created by a Bible thumper, but the fact I remember it says it’s a small one.
Cops have made me nervous ever since my hippie days. There are some great cops out there, but the police can create problems for anyone who questions authority. When I was arrested for having hash in the car entering the US, a federal offense, my first thought was that it was planted, but it turned out to have been lost by a previous passenger.
Gang bangers are scary to everyone, even or especially other gang bangers. That’s why they act and dress that way. I’ve often lived and walked in neighborhoods where there are gang bangers. I’m always extra-cautious around them, because people who believe in assault and theft frighten anyone with a brain.
Also, is it football Sunday? I’ve never been much for team sports.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Sailorman, over the line. Actually, most of your post is over the line, but I’m copying out this bit. Dial down before you post again on this thread.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
That is so condescending, Will.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Julie writes:
You know, as I said much earlier in this thread, I’m borderline on the hate crimes question myself. I wrote:
Plus, as I mentioned in comment #88, hate crime laws as they’re currently written raise some concerns about due process.
Admittedly, I don’t outright oppose hate crimes legislation, but I come close.
But I don’t think that my reasons for (almost) opposing hate crime laws are founded in bigotry; nor do I think that opposition to ineffective criminal laws, or worries about new laws bringing about new abuses by the system, are necessarily just pretexts for bigotry. I think these are legitimate concerns.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Mandolin, sorry if it sounds that way, but it’s true. He’s been one of my heroes for most of my adult life.
I know that fear can be impossible to live with. I have enormous sympathy for people who live in fear. One of the reasons I hate war and capitalism is they create enormous stress, and PTSDs are horrible, horrible things.
But fear can make people call for terrible solutions, too. If we let fear rule us, the Bushes of the world win.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Of course it is. And I don’t want to discuss every other law here: that would be ridiculous.
Er…well, I guess you would read them and think about them and then decide your opinion of them. I don’t see what this has to do with anything we’ve been discussing.
It’s not about what you like. It’s about what you require to be proven as a prerequisite to enaction.
Er. No, actually, I’m not.
There are plenty of reasons why a reasonable person could oppose enacting hate crime laws. However, “because the proponents haven’t proven that they work” is not one of them. Unless, of course, we habitually apply that same test to all laws, which is fine…but, as a society, we don’t.
It’s kinda like how Bush will say, “Border fence? Okay. Abstinence-only sex ed? Sure! Global warming legislation? Well…you guys haven’t PROVEN that it works; I can’t support it.” (And no, I’m not saying that anyone here is “like Bush”.)
It’s tempting to interpret my objection as an assertion that we shouldn’t take laws’ effectiveness into account when deciding if we like them or not. But that’s not it at all: it’s about whether proof is required, not about what we do once we have the proof.
I think I’ve been clear to the point of ridiculousness here. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer. It seems a very obvious, uncontroversial concept, and I am truly at a loss as to how to simplify it any further. I will ask you to go back to the paragraph that starts with, “There are plenty of reasons…” and make sure that you understand what I’m saying, and that I’m not saying that we should enact laws that we know to be ineffective. Because if you don’t understand (not necessarily agree with, but understand) that point, then I can see how everything I’ve said would just be a whole mess of confusing for you.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Bjartmarr, maybe you’re behind in reading: I’ve mentioned Prohibition several times. It’s only the most famous example of a law that was ended because it was not effective.
And Bush is having trouble getting his big fence because of the question of effectiveness. “Abstinance-only” appears to be going down in flames at last. Why? Effectiveness. It may not matter as much as you or I would wish, but it matters.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Laws about drinking and premarital sex are not effective because an awful lot of people enjoy drinking and screwing outside of marriage. (Sometimes at the same time.) Unless you are saying that people enjoy committing ‘hate crimes’ as much as they enjoy those things, I don’t get the ‘effectiveness’ argument.
Amp, I’m also not seeing your argument that hate crimes are probably unnecessary. The example of burning a pile of trash on the lawn has already been given. If I spraypaint “Die blogger” on your car, that’s, what? Vandalism?
The point of hate-crime laws is that there are acts whose intent is not simply to do something already criminal (such as steal money); they’re to harm and intimidate people we don’t like, because we perceive they belong to a group we despise. The KKK didn’t just burn crosses to threaten the particular black family on whose lawn they burned it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
mythago, apologies if I’m not following your point. Do I remember correctly that you’re Canadian? Then you might not know about the US experiment with Prohibition. The US laws about drinking and premarital sex have become much, much looser over time because the old laws were not efficient.
The Hillside Strangler terrorized everyone in Los Angeles. Serial killers often intend to terrorize everyone. Should criminals who terrorize everyone face greater sentences than criminals who only target a smaller group?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
will, I’m not Canadian, but I’m still wondering why you think people are as attracted to hate crimes as they are to drinking.
Should criminals who terrorize everyone face greater sentences than criminals who only target a smaller group?
False dilemma. But you knew that.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
mythago, I’m afraid I’m not parsing your first question. I was only pointing to drinking laws as examples of laws that were changed because they weren’t effective. Several people claimed laws aren’t judged by their effectiveness. While they may not be judged by effectiveness as often as I wish, laws are judged by effectiveness. Sometimes they’re repealed, and sometimes they stay on the books but fall into disuse.
And as for what you say is a “false dilemma,” if a crime should have an extra penalty because it is intended to terrorize people in a particular group, shouldn’t a crime have at least an equal penalty when it is intended to terrorize everyone?
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
You’re strenuously avoiding looking at why particular laws aren’t effective.
if a crime should have an extra penalty because it is intended to terrorize people in a particular group, shouldn’t a crime have at least an equal penalty when it is intended to terrorize everyone?
So a hate group that intended to terrorize every black person in America should have a worse penalty than the Hillside Strangler, since he only terrorized the population of Los Angeles?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 12:56 am
mythago, no strain, it’s easy! (*g*) But I still don’t see where you want to go with the effectiveness thing. Really, just point me to a study that concludes hate crime laws reduce the number of hate crimes, and if the methodology seems sound, my opposition to them will disappear.
Can you think of a hate crime intended to terrorize every black in America? All the hate crimes I can think of have been regional. Though it’s true that people outside of a region get to worry that the criminals will travel.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
mythago, no strain, it’s easy! (*g*)
Glad to hear it. I’d be happy to continue the discussion when you’re interested in arguing in good faith, instead of pretending ignorance whenever an inconvenient point is raised.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
mythago, I am trying to argue in good faith. I feel like I’m a unitarian talking to a trinitarian, and the trinitarian is saying, “But God’s tripartite nature is clear in the Bible!” and I’m saying “Where?” and the trinitarian is saying, “It’s clear! Tripartite nature! Won’t you argue in good faith?”
And the little *g* was meant to say that it seems like the trinitarian is now saying, “You’re strenuously avoiding recognizing God’s tripartite nature!” And I’m still going, “But where is it in the Bible? I honestly don’t see it, so tell me where you do.”
All I want is some evidence that since hate crime laws were enacted in 1969, they’ve made anyone safer.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
November 24th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Willie: All I want is some evidence that since hate crime laws were enacted in 1969, they’ve made anyone safer.
Wow! You are full of false delemmas, bad analogies, and circular arguments. You’re a real pro at it, Willie. Just remember one thing, and that is that you are not the one in danger of attack because of what and who you are. Therefore, anything that “might’ help us be safer is better than nothing at all. Since the only people that would be punished by a hate crime law are those that attack people for their race, sexual orientation, or like in my case, their gender ID, why are you so damned against it? Will the law make YOU any less safe?
Even if the law is a feel good law it’s better than nothing as well. If you have something against any comfort the law may give us then you are only showing us that you could really care less about our worries or our safety.
So when you see the day when gay men or GLBT people in general going out to beat up and murder heterosexuals then you can come talk to me, but until that day comes you will lose the argument or any of your circular debates that are ridiculous to say the least. We have to worry about being attacked for our sexuality, you don’t. That is the difference and that is the reason for needed hate crimes laws. If another bastard murders another one of my transgender girlfriends I want the creep to feel the extra sting in his ass when he hears “twenty five” more years added to his sentence. And if you don’t like that, tough beans, Willie! I like it fine!
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Just heard the news, the hate crimes bill was ditched until next time, but we will be back in full force after we get rid of the saddle waxer we have for a so called president at this time. The right wing presidential debates have made it obvious that they think this country is a theocracy, but they will find out that Bush’s and KKKarl Rove’s tricks won’t be working so well for them this go around.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Mandolin Writes:
October 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Aaaand, you made that accusation just because you’re not able to convince me that you’re right about a topic on which reasonable people often disagree. Which… I don’t give a shit of you’re gay or not, but that is WAY over the line. SO fuck off.
Sailorman, over the line. Actually, most of your post is over the line, but I’m copying out this bit. Dial down before you post again on this thread.
He just had to show me how he hasn’t the knowledge to debate correctly without initiating direct insult, which brings his knowledge in other areas into question.
This comment was written by Julie Ziegenfuss.Report this comment to the moderators