If you accept the doctrine of racial inequality which is behind this hate crimes bill and that some victims are more victimized because of who they are or what the criminal thought about them, then the next logical step is to start treating criminals differently based on considerations like race or gender or sexual preference. Murder is only assault if you're a woman. Robbery isn't even a crime if you're a member of an ethnic minority. A beating is a friendly handshake if the perpetrator is gay. It's the road to the complete breakdown of justice, because for the law to be just it must be applied equally.
Look at it another way. If the sentence for murder is life and a racial motivation adds 10 years to the sentence as this bill proposes, then you are giving out 10 years in jail solely for being a racist. Set the murder, which is already a crime, aside and you are punishing someone solely for the thoughts in his head. You couldn't send someone to jail for thinking racist thoughts and writing them down and even publishing them. Why should you be able to add to his sentence for thinking those thoughts while committing a crime? The most scary part is that the next step from here is punishing the thoughts without even bothering to have an associated crime.
This law is pointless and largely symbolic because it only applies in federal jurisdiction anyway. It's just a bone thrown to special interest groups on the left to reward their loyalty, while doing nothing for anyone except the occasional gay park ranger who gets mauled by a homophobic bear. The cost of this sort of pandering is huge. It debases the entire legal system, making a mockery of the principle of equality before the law on which our justice system is based. When you give select groups a superior status in the eyes of the law, you make everyone else a second-class citizen. That may appear like justice to some, but it only looks like justice when it cuts your way. When it's your thoughts or your unpopular ideas which are targeted it's going to look like tyranny, because that's exactly what it is.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet Gardner
I'm certainly glad this made the home page listings Dave
2 - Ruvy
Speaking of justice, I find it curious that in spite of the fact that I've contributed three articles to this site since 23 April 2009, you've not seen fit to list me among "recent contributors".
Hypocrisy much, Dave!
3 - Ruvy
Or perhaps, Mr. Nalle, what we are seeing is that Technorati tag, "racism," in action?
4 - Ruvy
Dave, please accept my apologies.
I was wrong to complain. When I looked carefully, I saw that the list of recent contributors only went up to the letter "m" in the English alphabet.
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".
Sorry again,
Ruvy
5 - Doug Hunter
Dave, I don't think they'll try and take it to the point of punishing thoughts... yet. That is in our future it's just one step at a time, you have to boil the frog slowly or it might jump.
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.
6 - M (a) ® k
'Equality before the law' is a pleasant fiction. Money talks (and frequently walks)...poverty does time.
7 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy and Jet:
There's a problem with the front page listing for Politics. For some reason we get two slots and Books gets 30. I've brought it up and we'll see if it gets fixed. So if your article disappears it's nothing personal, just that other stuff got published and with 2 slots nothing stays there long.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I don't think they'll try and take it to the point of punishing thoughts... yet. That is in our future it's just one step at a time, you have to boil the frog slowly or it might jump.
They already have hate speech laws in Canada and England and they have been proposed in various states here in the US. It's just a matter of time.
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.
The civil rights act and the existing criminal statutes already cover that case. In similar cases the feds have stepped in and prosecuted. I'm not familiar enough with this particular case to speculate as to why they haven't in it.
Dave
9 - Jet Gardner
Actually Ruvy, the bottom listings appear to go in order of publishing, not alphabetical order from the top left to the bottom right.
In a way I like it because it gives sort of a count down to when your name drops off the list and motivates you to write another article before it does.
As for the "recent" articles on the home page, someone's short-sheeting the politics section. Books has more than ten (if you click the additional icon below it), but suddenly politics only has three????
By the way Clavos got screwed out his listing on the home page two. My article's only two days old, his was only one!
Ah life.....
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. 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.
11 - Doug Hunter
"I'm not familiar enough with this particular case to speculate as to why they haven't in it."
It is very new and probably some action is pending. It seems like 95% of the time when you look into a story like this it's blown out of proportion, there is more to it, or ther are some mitigating factors. I haven't been able to determine any alternative than a group of drunk football players saw an illegal, called him a wetback, etc. then proceeded to beat and kick him to death in front of his girlfriend (then told her that any of their illegal friends better leave town or end up like him). It was a very rural area with some of the kids parents in law enforcement and the trial was kept in the area. They got off with simple assault charges.
There is zero chance a group of several illegal immigrants could have beat a white youth to death and got away with simple assault.
I spend alot of my time here trying to convince people that things have changed and we can get along and move past race... then every couple years something like this happens. It's an embarassment really and rolls back who knows how much goodwill that is slowly and carefully generated between people. There are plenty of laws on the books to address the wrong that was done without hate crime legislation, they just weren't properly enforced.
I expect this to blow up big in the near future.
12 - Doug Hunter
"Hate crime legislation has plenty of solid legal opinion backing it"
So does torture evidently.
"and slippery slope arguments like yours really don't hold water"
Except that he gave examples where these laws have grown to include so called 'hate speech'. Would you not consider that part of a slippery slope, even if you support making unpopular speech a crime?
Hate crimes are .1% of all violent crimes, this is just pandering by a political party that got into power by scaring 90+% of blacks into voting for them.
13 - roger nowosielski
Mark, #6
A fact conveniently overlooked by the opponents of the status quo. Ideally, the law should reflect the interests of the community at large; all to often, it's an instrument at the hands of the empowered.
But we are moving in the right direction, however slowly, Mark, because the "popular consciousness" is on the rise. But it's going to take time.
14 - Dan(Miller)
Dave, you say, This law is pointless and largely symbolic because it only applies in federal jurisdiction anyway. However, it (like other special situation Federal legislation) would create Federal jurisdiction where none would otherwise exist. I am not aware of any compelling need to extend Federal jurisdiction in this manner, and to do so wantonly is troublesome.
Most murders, assaults and other crimes are now subject to Federal jurisdiction only in narrowly limited circumstances. Absent Federally created Federal jurisdiction, state and local courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This is not necessarily a bad thing. With Federal hate crime legislation, spectacular attention getting cases are likely to generate races between State and Federal jurisdictions to see which can get to court first; not necessarily with the most fairness nor even with the best case. 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. I know that there is a tendency on the part of the Federal Government to feel that the States don't know how to do things correctly, or that they do not bother to do so. This strikes me as a mistake.
In the absence of a compelling need for Federal legislation, I would prefer exclusive jurisdiction to remain with the local and state authorities. States can write and enforce hate crime and other laws where necessary, and I am unaware of any reason for the Federal Government to interpose itself needlessly.
Dan(Miller)
15 - roger nowosielski
An SOS for Dan Miller, if you please:
Comment #262 on Jet's thread (concerning "the hoax").
16 - Dave Nalle
I agree, Dan. There's no need for a federal law like this for many reasons. But the bill is specific about limiting its scope to federal jurisdiction, for what little that's worth.
Dave
17 - Dan(Miller)
Dave,
We read the bill rather differently. To me, this does appear to be an attempt to create new Federal criminal offenses and new Federal jurisdiction. The brief introductory paragraph in the bill, "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes" is hardly a full statement of what the bill would apparently do; such statements rarely are. Nor is the short title, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" adequately descriptive. The meat, or at least a big chunk of the meat, comes in Section 6.
Section 6, "Prohibition of Certain Hate Crimes," would amend the Federal Criminal Code to provide in (a)(2) "OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY," that (paraphrased for brevity unless otherwise indicated) whoever willfully injures someone or attempts to do so "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability" of the victim is subject to the punishments stated if the conduct involves crossing a state or national line, uses implements obtained in interstate commerce, interferes with the victim's use of interstate commerce or otherwise affects interstate commerce and the State lacks, or does not intend to exercise, jurisdiction or if "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." The last sentence appears also to raise possible double jeopardy issues.
As I read it, the bill would grant Federal jurisdiction if the conduct in some quite remote way impacted interstate commerce and if the State lacked or declined to exercise jurisdiction or if the Federal Government were not satisfied with the effectiveness of the action taken by the State.
Dan(Miller)
18 - El Bicho
"you take the fairness out of the system and grant special privileges to some people which others don't enjoy."
Are you not paying attention. That's already happening. If you think rich and poor get the same justice, you don't know how the system works at all.
19 - Clavos
That's already happening. If you think rich and poor get the same justice, you don't know how the system works at all.
So why exacerbate the situation by adding yet another layer of inequality. Would it not be better to try to equalize instead?
20 - roger nowosielski
"There are plenty of laws on the books to address the wrong that was done without hate crime legislation, they just weren't properly enforced." (#11)
So why aren't they properly enforced, Doug? Perhaps you can enlighten us in this respect, because otherwise you're just repeating a slogan.
21 - Baronius
Dave, is your reasoning correct? There are a lot of criminal acts that we treat differently based on the actor's thinking: attempted murder, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to commit fraud, et cetera. They all require a bit of mind-reading. Now, I think that hate crime laws are stupid, but I'd like to hear an explanation for how they're different from other "thought crimes".
BTW, that bit about the gay park ranger is the funniest thing you've ever written.
22 - Clavos
BTW, that bit about the gay park ranger is the funniest thing you've ever written.
Second that...
23 - Dr Dreadful
Dave @ #8:
The offence in England is called 'incitement to racial hatred' and is not exactly an arbitrary 'hate speech'law. You can say 'I hate [insert unfortunate ethnic descriptor of choice here]' all you like and all that will happen is that you will confirm the opinion of most of those listening to you that you are a dickhead whose balls should be separated post-haste from the wrinkled little bag in which they reside and fed to Tasmanian devils.
To cross the line, what you say has to be seen to incite others in some way to join you in your hatred, and that's always been taken to mean a threat to increase the likelihood of racial violence.
That's quite some way from the laws that some European countries have, wherein it's illegal even to express scepticism about certain aspects of World War II history.
Those laws go altogether too far; but I've expressed on Jet's thread why I think 'hate crime' legislation is warranted (although I kind of wish somebody would come up with a better term for it) and I don't think I need to go into my reasoning again here.
24 - Darth Vader
Happy Star Wars Day! May the 4th be with you.
25 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D., that's a very fine line between just making a statement and inciting someone and the interpretation is always going to be highly subjective.
That's what bothers me about all of this, the subjectivity. With laws which are based on actions it's objective. You hit someone in the head with a hammer and kill them, you go to jail for life. Simple. Doesn't matter what brand of hammer you used, what you said while you were hitting them or what your motivation was.
Laws based on objective, real-world standards can be relied on. The more latitude you give a jury to interpret abstract and hypothetical aspects of the crime the more chance you have of a miscarriage of justice.
There are a lot of criminal acts that we treat differently based on the actor's thinking: attempted murder, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to commit fraud, et cetera. They all require a bit of mind-reading.
Not mind-reading, situation reading. Intent is very different from motive. Intent is about what you are going to do. Motive is about why you are doing something. Intent can be extrapolated from the facts. For example, intent to distribute is determined from the amount of drugs you have. Same thing with conspiracy. You can establish relationships factually based on a person's actions. Motive cannot be established empirically, it's always subjective. That's why it shouldn't be considered in determining the sentence for a crime.
Dave