[ ]*/', ' ', ''))
Since I wrote about the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 earlier this week, I've had an opportunity to help write a press release on the issue for the Republican Liberty Caucus, and made it the subject of my latest Poolside Chat video (see below). In the process I spent a lot more time looking over the legislation and found even more to be worried about.
The original complaint remains the same. Hate crimes laws like this destroy the idea that everyone is equal under the law. The first truth held to be self-evident in our Declaration of Independence is that "all men are created equal," but when you start dividing them into groups and giving those groups special legal protections you are making some more equal than others. That's not equality at all. It's the tyranny of privilege in the service of political correctness.
What I discovered on a closer reading of the bill is even more troubling than my original concerns. Included in the legislation are extensive provisions for providing grants from the federal government to local law enforcement specifically for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. This program is similar to programs from the War on Drugs, which blurred the line between state and federal jurisdiction and provided incentives for gratuitous investigations and prosecutions to keep the federal dollars coming in.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
"When there's a profit motive you can guarantee that investigators are going to find hate crimes everywhere and prosecutors are going to pursue convictions as hard as they can. There won't actually be any more hate-motivated crimes than there were before, but there will certainly be more people spending extra time in jail because it was profitable to add a hate crimes charge to the case against them."
Good point, Dave. I just wish you were consistent in application of this thinking. For example, this ought to have been one paramount objection with respect to the issue of the privatization of the prison industry. I don't recall, however, your opposition to the idea - or not at least on these grounds.
What I'm saying, in effect, is that you would be far more convincing if you were to apply certain rules of thumb - like the one in question - in an evenhanded way and regardless of the ideological divide.
I'm not saying you're doing this deliberately; hence the suggestion.
Roger
2 - roger nowosielski
Another point, Dave, since we're on the subject:
"Hate crimes laws like this destroy the idea that everyone is equal under the law."
I find this statement somewhat problematic, if not obfuscating. My understanding of "equality under the law" has to do with equal protection for any two citizens - everything else being equal (e.g., both the rich man and the poor man commit the same offense and get equal representation). But your notion of "equal under the law" appears to stretch the concept beyond what may well be its "natural boundaries."
Any comments?
Roger
3 - Dave Nalle
Roger, I actually ran for office against a woman who is the leading advocate in Texas of prison privatization.
I have no objection to the basic idea of privatizing prisons, but when there is money to be made in the process by law enforcement and by legislators the system becomes corrupt very quickly.
Dave
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, but the situation isn't that different between the two cases, for there is a profit motive and great potential for collusion between public and private interests. And we both know that there have been abuses, not to mention a motivation on the part of the political machinery to push for tougher crime bills and longer mandatory sentences. So the very idea may be somewhat suspect, in spite of all the pragmatic arguments to the contrary in terms of saving the buck.
Roger
5 - Doug Hunter
Roger, I think you have some good points in regards to private prisons. They will find a way to keep them full for profit's sake.
Nalle, This is a great strategy by the leftists. It will pander to it's current voters then, when they pay people to manufacture hate crimes where none existed before, they can claim that hate crimes have skyrocketed since Obama took office. It's part of the hate based divide and conquer strategy of the left. The more hate and distrust based on race, religion, class, sex, orientation, etc. the better the leftists do.
6 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Doug. That's the first acknowledgment to the effect I've heard yet from a conservative.
BTW, you might give a quick glance at my general argument against privatization, a BC piece "Politics and Ethics: Moral Foundations of a Just State."
(I would have given you the link, but it's rather difficult given this site is still far from being fully operational.)
7 - Doug Hunter
Roger, I don't consider myself very conservative, especially with my very libertarian social views. My primary values are freedom and liberty followed by fairness. Those are very difficult and abstract concepts to defend hence the reason neither party represents them well. They are difficult because inherent in freedom and liberty is the concept of making the 'wrong' use of it. Freedom to do the only the right things isn't really freedom at all.
I will check out the piece soon.
8 - Clavos
There's nothing wrong with the link coding, Roger, I've put several into comments the last few days; the most recent was within the past hour.
9 - roger nowosielski
Doug, I just used the first word that came to mind; I hate labels myself because they're so misleading and unfair; but I had to refer to a class of people. So I hope you do understand.
10 - roger nowosielski
Could you tell me on what thread, Clavos. (I see that many features are getting corrected, like the url and name not disappearing as they used to.)
11 - roger nowosielski
BTW, Doug, I'm in total agreement with you on #7.
12 - roger nowosielski
To add: the problems and most of disagreement has to do with applications - not the general principles, I should hope.
I'm excluding of course all ideologues and unclear thinkers.
13 - dee
This is the most effed up logic I have ever read. In theory, yes everyone is created equal under the law, unfortunately for gay people, black people, etc. you have to count on men and women to uphold these laws. That's where the problem starts. There would be no need for a law like this, and all the extra crap included in it, if people wouldn't act on their own beliefs and think they can decide what is right and wrong. Once people start following the constitution, and not their own beliefs, then there would be no need for a law like this.
14 - roger nowosielski
Welcome to this site, Dee. And follow it more closely if you want to see more of the same.
Your fresh voice is welcome.
Roger
15 - Dave Nalle
It will pander to it's current voters then, when they pay people to manufacture hate crimes where none existed before, they can claim that hate crimes have skyrocketed since Obama took office.
I think this is a very real, very serious concern. I wouldn't swear that this was the intent behind the way this bill was set up, but I think it is very likely to be the result which it produces.
BTW, everyone DIGG this article using the link at the top. We're trying to see if we can increase the awareness of some of our BC politics articles using DIGG.
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
This is the most effed up logic I have ever read. In theory, yes everyone is created equal under the law, unfortunately for gay people, black people, etc. you have to count on men and women to uphold these laws. That's where the problem starts.
But if people aren't upholding the existing laws, why would you expect them to uphold this law any more successfully. Racists and bigots in law enforcement will resent the hate crime law and probably be more likely to just let hate criminals off in order to avoid legitimizing the law at all.
Dave
17 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
I'm really having a problem with your last comment, and I mean it respectfully.
You speak first of "people not upholding the existing laws." And then, in the next sentence, you refer to "the racists and bigots in law enforcement."
Could you please clarify. Are you suggesting now that the judges are racists and bigots, or you speak of the juries? Either way, this would suggest a serious problem, far more serious than anything discussed thus far.
Roger
18 - Dave Nalle
Roger, I was just working from Dee's premise. She said that the laws on the books weren't being enforced equally on a racial basis. That implies that there is a racial bias in law enforcement and the justice system. And sure, same for the juries.
That's her idea, not mine. My answer to the issue is quite different. The reason why more blacks are in jail is social and cultural, not a product of bigotry for the most part. As the DC school voucher program (which Obama is going to kill) demonstrates, if you get the black youth out of the ghetto and away from that culture, they don't get involved in crime and they succeed and prosper like anyone else.
Dave
19 - zingzing
dave, if you don't want to look like some awful, privileged republican, espousing ideas about how the white man is constantly put upon, for heaven's sake, DON'T call it your "poolside chat." it's fuckin' hi-larious, really. poor man. i'm not saying you ARE a racist, but you could read between the lines and find that. you could also find the middle aged man with nothing better to do than laze about the pool and think about his conspiracy theories.
calling the legal system "equal" is also a fucking joke, and i think you know that. but... i think if murder/assault is based on hateful (racial, sexual-identity based...) motives, it should incur extra punishment. that said, it should work both ways. if a white man beats up a black man just because he's black, a black man who beats up a white man just because he's white should get the same punishment.
if this bill starts listing off groups who get special attention, then i think that's a bad thing. but it doesn't. everyone is still equal under the law. if you're worried that it will target white people, i guess you admit that there is a racial bias in our law system. and i guess you only get worried about it when this bias could affect you. which is troubling.
20 - Jet
How many ways are planning to publish the same article?
21 - Baronius
Zing, all murder/assault is based on hateful motives.
22 - zingzing
yes, baronius, that's why i qualified the term with "racial, sexual, etc." so as to point out that the term "hateful" coincides with the use of the word "hate" in "hate crimes." and that's why i put those qualifiers directly after the word "hateful," hoping that no one would get confused and make the dumbass comment you just made.
23 - Jet
Is picking on Dave's video a hate crime?
24 - Clavos
Is picking on Dave's video a hate crime?
Only if you're not a straight WASP.
25 - zingzing
but, how does the fact that i hate america play into this question?