It may look like justice now, but wait until it's your thoughts which are targeted as unpopular.
Like something out of a dystopian novel by Philip K. Dick or George Orwell, the House of Representatives has voted to endorse the idea of prosecuting people for the thoughts in their heads rather than actual crimes they commit in the real world.…
Article comments
26 - Clavos
@#25:
You have way too much time on your hands*
*strolls away, struggling not to laugh
27 - Baronius
Dave, that makes sense.
28 - roger nowosielski
Re # 26 - good distinctions, still they're closely connection when it comes to committing a crime. To say that motive is subjective is a cop out - it seems to me. In fact, precisely opposite conclusions are possible. The intent is made evident by the fact that a person had done so and so. The motive - which has to do with whys - although more difficult to determine, informs the nature of the act. It's precisely the motive that the courts need determine - hard as it may be - when it comes to sentencing. Was it done out of revenge or in the heat of passion, for financial gain or just out of boredom. These things matter.
29 - Baronius
A quick look around the internet supports Dave. If I read things correctly (not a given in matters of law), this legislation is as radically different from the American/British tradition as Dave depicts it. Very creepy.
30 - El Bicho
"So why exacerbate the situation by adding yet another layer of inequality."
There's no inequality unless you commit a crime. I can intellectualize it and say hate crimes are unnecessary, but if there's a possibility it can do some good, whether keeping a criminal in jail longer or giving a potential perpetrator pause, I am not so heartless that I would refuse to make a compromise to those I disagree with.
"Would it not be better to try to equalize instead?"
It would, but the situation will never be equal. Some will never see those different from themselves as equals. The rich will always have more resources than the poor to game the system.
31 - El Bicho
"For example, intent to distribute is determined from the amount of drugs you have."
That's a bit mind reading right there and doesn't support your position. Not everyone who has possesses the amount of drugs that passes the threshold of intent to sell is intending to sell them.
32 - Clavos
Not everyone who has possesses the amount of drugs that passes the threshold of intent to sell is intending to sell them.
True, but the law in most states makes the assumption (rightly, IMO) that once the threshold is exceeded, you are.
33 - Doug Hunter
"So why aren't they properly enforced, Doug?"
Most likely because of jury bias. That's not something you can reasonably change with more laws. When someone is beat to death, especially by a mob, I expect at least manslaughter, not simple assault. Also, there could be details of the case I'm not privy to, but it appeared cut and dry.
34 - Dave Nalle
Here's another way to look at it. If your non-gay son or daughter is murdered by someone of the same race, would you want their killer to get less of a sentence than if the killer were of a different race or your child was gay?
Dave
35 - Elvira Black
Shoot, the computer ate my long comments twice already, so for now I'll just say: great article, Dave--touches on a lot of points that I find personally as well as historically relevant. Good stuff.
36 - roger nowosielski
Well, Doug. It looks then that improper law enforcement ought to the issue with all law-abiding citizens such as yourself and all others on this here site. Because, I'll still say that to use that presumed fact merely as an objection isn't very convincing.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
It's just like you said: "Intent can be extrapolated from the facts."
When there's witness testimony concerning a group of young men who are beating a victim and telling that victim WHY they are beating him e.g. "We're killing you because you're a faggot!", then that meets all the requirements for intent.
I've seen it before...and been on the wrong side of it before...and I say YES, hate crimes - as long as the INTENT can be held to the same standard as intent in other cases - should be prosecuted as such in accordance with the laws passed by our elected officials.
38 - roger nowosielski
So Glenn. Are you buying Dave's distinction with reference to crime? Just wonder.
39 - Glenn Contrarian
No.
There's a big difference between a simple physical assault and one that is motivated by hatred of the group to which one belongs...because that obviates the desire to do harm to any and all others who belong to that group.
It does NOT matter what group to which one belongs, if it is shown that the harm was intended to the victim because of that victim's membership in a group, must warrant a more serious charge...because if someone gets a relative slap on the hand for assaulting, say, a black man while espousing racial hatred of that man's race, then that effectively gives the go-ahead for others who share the assailant's hatred to do the same thing...or worse.
Dave, this is one of those cases where you really should look at both sides of the story, and consider that maybe, just maybe, in this instance the far-right rhetoric fails to meet the test of reality.
40 - Dan
"If they are going to pass this stuff, they might as well put it to good use. Go after the dickheads who beat immigrant Luis Ramirez to death and got away with simple assault from an all white local jury."---Doug Hunter
According to court testimony, after an initial scuffle and trade of blows between two of the teens and 25 year old Ramirez, The two sides eventually went their separate ways. But it was Ramirez who charged after the departing group that led to another one of the teens to knock him out.
Although it was very tragic, the jury could have been right.
41 - El Bicho
According to court testimony by whom?
42 - Baritone
"crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community."
To me, that is the heart of the matter. Hate crimes go beyond the individual assault or killing.
I don't buy into Dave's prognostications regarding what he believes is likely to happen regarding what we say, what we write or what we think. I don't fear the coming of the "thought police."
Klanners still march down Main St. and give public hate filled speeches with impunity. The ACLU has even successfully defended the Klan in court.
The "crimes" targeted by the House bill pertain to physical harm done to others targeted owing to their race, religion, lack of religion, nationality, gender or sexual preference.
Ever since the rise of Obama, Dave and others here have become alarmist conspiracy nuts. To read many of the articles Dave and others (mostly on the right) have produced over the past several months, one could believe not only that we may be subject to arrest for what we think, but that all guns will be taken from us, that we will all be taxed out of existence and that there is a commie behind every tree.
Dave has devoted an entire web site or a portion of one of his web sites (I don't remember which) to debunking conspiracy nuts, yet it is clear that he has - perhaps by too close association - been infected with the same virus. His extrapolations are alarmist and often defy logic or reason.
It apparently comes to him owing to his general loathing and mistrust of Dems and anyone from the left. He imagines that all manner of heinous things will be emerging from the evil minds of the fellow travelers now in control of the government. (BBIWY)
B
43 - Cindy
B,
I have something for you! I'll leave a link here when I find it.
44 - Cindy
Here B, You'll love this.
Playing for Change"
They have a bunch of videos. Sort of like Where the hell is Matt. Only with street musicians from around the world.
(p.s. Sorry for being so militant about that show. I really loved the woman. She was amazing. I got your intention. That show just makes me livid.)
45 - roger nowosielski
B-man,
That was eloquent. Why don't you treat us to a piece, to offset the constant harangue from the desperate Right? To keep it fair and balanced.
46 - Baritone
Cindy,
I have seen the "Playing for Change" video. It's great. I really love the old bearded guy from (I think) New Orleans. I'd love to see if there exist complete versions of the song from each of the participants.
And, I tend to agree with you regarding the "Idol" & "Got Talent" shows. They are often snarkey and downright nasty. But, the participants often set themselves up for being smacked down. After the, what, 5 or 6 years these shows have been in production, it's beyond reason to believe that the would-be contestants don't know how the judges respond. It's a two way street. Some come on, make asses of themselves, get slammed and then get all indignant. Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame(actually, in this case, it's more like 5 or 6 minutes - so they may have 9 or 10 minutes still coming. Oh, goody!)
B
47 - Baritone
Roger,
I have wanted to put something together, but I am busy as hell attempting to make a living. About all I have time for are occasional comments. I'll offer something up whenever business slows down a bit (RE appraising.)
I did write a little piece of fluff at my rapturenutballs.blogspot.com site a few days ago, but I didn't feel it worthy of publication here.
Thanks for the support, though.
B
48 - Baritone
Cindy,
The particular video I was refering to is their "Stand By Me" piece. I haven't watched any of the others as yet.
B
49 - roger nowosielski
Well, it ain't so bad then if you're waiting for business to slow down. Good for you.
50 - zingzing
i posted this elsewhere, but i think it's equally hilarious here...
did you guys see that michael savage has been banned from entering britain for being a dangerous, homophobic racist? (a bit of an overreaction, i say, but you know...)
the best part is that he changed his name to "savage." know what it was? weiner. come on! change your name, if you want, but... damn, don't make it embarrassing...
he claims he's being punished for his thoughts. i think he's being punished for his asshole. and his weiner. and the fact that he's a big bag of used up douche products. and that britain just doesn't want him around.
51 - zingzing
"Ever since the rise of Obama, Dave and others here have become alarmist conspiracy nuts. To read many of the articles Dave and others (mostly on the right) have produced over the past several months, one could believe not only that we may be subject to arrest for what we think, but that all guns will be taken from us, that we will all be taxed out of existence and that there is a commie behind every tree."
damn if that ain't the truth.
look out, dave! we're here for your guns, and we're going to bring the War on Capitalism! and we're going to actually lower your taxes! hahahahaha. oh my.
52 - roger nowosielski
Carry on zing. I'm taking a short break.
Michael Savage is a consummate a.. hole. Entertaining now and then, yes. But he had lost me, and for good, once he started the "boys and girls" form of address.
Now, your next project is to try to impress it on Ruvy that it ain't cool.
Later.
53 - Dr Dreadful
zing(zing),
There was a discussion topic on the BBC News website yesterday entitled, 'Should People Be Banned from Britain?'
I thought that was a very good idea. They've been nothing but trouble ever since those Neolithic folks first wandered across the land bridge and got themstupidselves stuck when the glaciers melted.
54 - Clavos
...and we're going to actually lower your taxes!
Yeah right. They're going to (and are) spend all that money bailing out their buddies and bringing the "benefits" of government-administered medicine to everyone and lower taxes.
What, did you skip math in school, zing?
55 - zingzing
meh. i got more back than i usually do. did you? my taxes were MOST CERTAINLY lowered.
and a republican would be doing the same thing as obama is now anyway, so that doesn't change a damn thing. you know it, i know it. washington always takes the "JUST THROW MONEY AT IT!" approach to these things, and that's what's happening.
did you forget that this is the same world whether or not america is run by a republican or a democrat? skip history in school, clavvy?
56 - zingzing
just reminding you that a republican was in office when this thing started and he had his chance to give the old republican try at fixing it. you know what he did? that's right. he threw money at it.
so don't tell me the republicans would do any different. they'd have no other choice. of course, now that they aren't in charge, or when they know the "decider" will push it through over their complaints anyway (as bush did), they can make a stink about it. but they don't have any other answers.
57 - zingzing
and being that my taxes actually did go down (as has every other person's that i've asked), i'd say the math is pretty solid. for now.
of course, that can all change. and i'm sure it will. that's the nature of change.
58 - Dave Nalle
Zing, if your taxes went down then the credit goes to Bush, because Obama's tax proposals haven't actually been enacted yet.
AS for the rest of my "prognostications" they aren't. It's only a prognostication if it applies to the future. In this article and others I'm reporting on things which have happened or are happening right now.
Dave
59 - Dan
"According to court testimony by whom?"---El Bicho
(regarding exculpatory evidence in the Ramirez case)
Well there is some conflicting testimony, and some agreed upon testimony in both the trial and discovery.
The things that seem to be agreed are that the 6 football players came across the lone 15 year old girl and one of them said "Isn’t it a little late for you to be out?" at which point Ramirez "stepped out of the shadows" and began shouting in enraged Spanish while dialing friends on a cell phone. Exchanges of racial epithets ensued between Ramirez and one of the boys. After some time the confrontation escalated, and Ramirez took off his shirt and medallion, and handed them to the girl along with his wallet. The man and one of the football players began to land blows, though who struck first is a point of contention. One of the other boys then tackled Ramirez and, after holding him to the ground a while, let him up and returned to the group announcing "it's over". The football players then departed, though one of them still taunted Ramirez. Before they got very far though, Ramirez's friends arrived on the scene, and Ramirez ran after the departing group and struck a blow to the back of the head of the taunter, at that point, another of the boys came in with a lunging uppercut to the head that felled Ramirez. The boy who had taunted and been struck by Ramirez then kicked the evidently unconscious Ramirez in the head.
Some key points the jury might have considered:
It wasn't a group attack. 3 of the boys were not charged with any verbal or physical assault. Another of the boys involvement was primarily to break up the fight. One of the boys actually was the one to call police.
Ramirez's aggressiveness contributed to the incident, and he being the only adult, should have reasonably been expected to exercise some maturity and back out of a situation. Seldom do you have the opportunity to remove shirts and wallets, and call in backups when you're acting in self defense.
It's not surprising to me why Doug Hunter was astonished by the verdict given the MSM's slanted analysis. For instance, the phrase "all white jury" seems to be a universal in the coverage, while the phrase "illegal alien" gets no play at all.
Likewise, the fact that one of the investigators on the scene, who happened to be dating one of the football players' mother, gets prominent coverage, but the fact that 25 year old Ramirez was carrying on a sexual relationship with the 15 year old half sister of the mother of his two children does not.
Admittedly, a kick to the head of a downed man shouldn't go unpunished. But on this point testimony conflicted. One of Ramirez's friends was a witness for the defense. The jury couldn't decide which boy did it.
60 - Franco
10 - Jon Sobel
"Hate crime legislation has plenty of solid legal opinion backing it, and slippery slope arguments like yours really don't hold water."
O really, and why, just because you say so?
Now speaking of what dose not hold water, that would be your next statement.
"As Maddow sensibly put it, "crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community." Hence different treatment is called for."
Jon, that "different treatment being called for" is already fully installed in our legal system as Dave has clearly pointed out in his artical.
"We already have laws on the books at the state and federal level to appropriately punish any possible crime based on the severity of the harm done and even considerations like "special circumstances" of unusual cruelty or the age or nature of the victim.
So in fact Jon, Dave's article aleady holds all the legal water there is.
Rebuttal?
61 - Franco
19 - Clavos
I solute your ongoing efforts to wake up the bug.
62 - Franco
14 - Dan(Miller)
"The expansion of Federal jurisdiction is also troublesome for the same reason that most such expansions are troublesome: each incremental expansion is in derogation of the role of State and local governments.
Thank you Dan (Miller). This is the bigger picture and it is growing slowly all the time.
As Doug Hunter stated in #5 ”it's just one step at a time, you have to boil the frog slowly or it might jump".
63 - Dan
the irony of hate crime legislation is that liberals don't really get to persecute the real object of their hate. White, reasonably successful, moderately Christian, heterosexual men nearly never commit the violent acts that can get a tag along thought crime added to their legal problems.
Liberals shoot themselves in the foot. All across the board, for every catagory of victim, it is their united victim tribes that are more likely to be in the various offender catagories.
Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that atheist's were a categorical victim.
I haven't heard many stories of atheists being assaulted by theists. Surely with the laws of large numbers it has to have happened somewhere. Liberals have probably built some monument to memorialize the event.
64 - STM
Ruve: "If you or whoever is in charge of this, could list through the entire alphabet, so that folks like the Obnoxious American and Realist can also be seen as "recent contributors".
Silver Surfer would be buggered getting a guernsey I suppose?
65 - STM
If people were getting locked up for their thoughts, Dave would be in deep doo doo.
And don't get me started on Ruve ...
Maybe this is the root of Dave's opposition to this.
Stray dogs and cougars may now get a voice :)
66 - Aaron Whitehead
Dave --
"What has never been a factor in criminal prosecution is motivation of the criminal..."
Umm, no. That's egregiously false. If you kill someone and are motivated by self-protection, then your motivation will BE your defense. Also, if your motive is political terrorism, that will be taken into account. And if your motive is revenge in the heat of the moment, that will be aken into account. In fact, you could argue that juries often take motive into account moreso than the letter of the law. You seem to be arguing that all murders are created equal, an idea with no legal precedent that's only valid on paper.
As to your claim that our country is headed toward the punishment of hate speech: prove it. Nothing in your article backs up your inflammatory headline. Where in this new law does speech become as equally punishable as action? Prove your points; not everyone shares your paranoia.
Canada and England have similar laws? They also have roundabouts, and those haven't overtaken America yet either. One thing we do have that England does not is a Bill of Rights and a much stronger free speech tradition, so I'm not buying any slippery slope.
You keep saying things in your article such as "the next step is" or "the next logical step is." I find these statements easier to understand if I replace "logical step" with "paranoid leap." If you do possess proof that this is just the beginning of a conspiracy to deny Americans their First Amendment rights, then back it up with some kind of facts.
67 - roger nowosielski
"What has never been a factor in criminal prosecution is motivation of the criminal..."
Umm, no. That's egregiously false. If you kill someone and are motivated by self-protection, then your motivation will BE your defense. Also, if your motive is political terrorism, that will be taken into account. And if your motive is revenge in the heat of the moment, that will be aken into account. In fact, you could argue that juries often take motive into account moreso than the letter of the law. You seem to be arguing that all murders are created equal, an idea with no legal precedent that's only valid on paper."
Exactly, Aaron. It's incomprehensible to me that someone like Dave would be using such arguments to argue against the position he doesn't like.
Dave, there is only one way I can understand you, and that is - you're not really speaking in your own voice but are trying to defend the position of your party, the Caucus, whatever group you think you represent.
Fuck that shit, Dave. You've got to be an independent thinker, regardless of where your political affiliations lie. And don't tell me now you're incapable of that.
Again, I refuse to believe that some of the things that Aaron refers to in #66 represent your own thinking and voice.