So, I'm sitting on the MAX listening to NPR this morning and coverage of the Texas trial of the dragging death, and the Mathew Shepard case and also the Church shootings and they're going on about hate crime legislation. When I first heard about the Texas thing everyone was hopping up and down saying 'hate crime' which, while it may be, made me sort of irritated. It seems to me that regardless of the motivation that it took a truly depraved and sick human being to commit such a crime. I felt that saying that he died because he was black sort of belittled his death. He died because those guys were capable of unimaginable horror.

But, basically, it all came down to the fact that I don't understand what the classification of something as a 'hate crime' would make a difference in the courts. And, I thought to myself, I'll have to ask Beth. Because, not only is she opinionated but that's what I like most about her.

So what do you, an others, think about hate crime legislation. Is it necessary? Will it change things? Where is the difference that it will make?

-- Anonymous, November 09, 1999

Answers

Funny you should mention this, because I was just reading this article and deciding that it made me so frustrated that I couldn't even talk about it. But your question is a reasonable one, so let me tell you what I think.

Basically, I can see both sides of the hate crime argument. A horrible act is a horrible act is a horrible act, regardless of the motivation. The victim suffers just as much whether you drag them to death because you're a racist, or because you're robbing them, or because you're a psychopath.

However, it could be argued that society suffers more if the crime has a racist or sexist or homophobic intent, and since criminal offenses are seen as crimes against society, not individuals, then society can make the choice to punish a hate crime more severely. We already examine mental states and motives all the time: if you kill someone for financial gain, it's generally considered more serious and warrants a longer punishment than if you kill them because you don't like their face. You'll spend more time in prison if you think about killing someone for a long time before you do it, as opposed to killing them in the heat of passion. We already make these distinctions.

Note that we're talking about increasing the punishment for existing crimes, which is the type of hate crime legislation that courts have found constitutional. Making something that is otherwise legal a crime just because it has a hateful intent is a violation of the First Amendment. For instance: if it's legal for me to have a bonfire on my front lawn, or to burn an effigy of the Pope, then you can't make it illegal for me to burn a cross on my lawn just because you don't like the particular message that burning a cross conveys. Your option is to make all lawn bonfires illegal, or let me have mine.

Do I think hate crime legislation helps? Unfortunately, not really. I've seen hate crime enhancements applied in some pretty stupid ways. The Texas dragging death and the Matthew Shepard case are both extreme examples; there are lots of gray area cases that don't get as much press. For instance, in the case in which the California Supreme Court upheld our state's hate crime law, it was applied to a group of white men who had killed a Latino man. A woman friend of the defendants had told them she had been raped by a Latino man in a particular location, and they went to that spot, found a Latino guy, and killed him. Some of the men had swastika tattoos and ties to racist organizations. From the court's opinion (which upheld the hate crime finding partly because of the tattoos), I couldn't tell if the defendants killed the man because he was Latino and they were getting revenge, or if they killed him because they thought they had the right guy (they didn't), or if they killed him because "they all look alike." It seems to me that if it was the first, it's a hate crime. If it was the second, not a hate crime. If it was the last one, I don't know the answer. All of that was glossed over, and that made me uncomfortable because I don't like any glossing over when so much is at stake.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 1999

I was listening to Randall Terry on the radio yesterday (something I do because I think he's scary and I want to keep an eye on him, not because I agree with anything he said) and he was all over that Jesse Dirkheising story, belittling the Matthew Shepard case's coverage and asking why they don't cover stories like that one.

Basically I agree with Xeney - hate crimes hurt us all as a society, and we have to make it clear that they disgust us. The amount of outrage, measured by newspaper stories, that any crime generates is always hard to gauge. Newspapers choose the stories they cover, and in what depth, by what they think people care about, or what they think people should care about. That's a fact of life.

I think it's important to get statistics about crimes. Like, how many people are killed basically because they are gay or black or whatever. How often are children killed by thrill killers etc. There was a great story in Salon about some guy who researched Halloween candy tampering stories and found not one that panned out, since sometime like 1958. There were some cases where children died of cyanide in Pixie stix or something - that their parents had put there. If we're going to be concerned, let's get the facts about what to be concerned about. My gut tells me that there are more attacks on gay people than killings of children by gay people, but I'd like to see statistics.

I also agree that the hate crime legislation probably doesn't help much.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999

Hate crime laws are really "thought crime" laws. They require the goverment to see into the minds of the accused, rather than make a judgment that an actual physical act was committed.

They are irrational and dangerous to our liberty. It is a bitter irony that the people cheering for them are often the same people who critize states like Texas, where we are very tough on criminals.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1999

As I said back when this thread was first posted, Jim, the government looks into the minds of the accused all the time, in every single criminal case. It's called "mens rea." Ever heard of premeditation? Well, proving premeditation requires the jury to try to figure out what the criminal was thinking. There's nothing new about this; every state does it, even (I hear tell) Texas.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Sorry I started an unneeded new thread, Beth.

You're quite right that even here in prehistoric Texas we consider the state of mind of the criminal when we sentence. I know because I have been on a jury in a serious felony case.

Isn't that fact an argument AGAINST hate crime laws as being unnecessary? If someone is really sick and twisted we already have a mechanism for sending him away for a longer time (up to and including forever).

As far as "society" being more harmed because of the group membership of the victim, I just don't buy it. The government should take as little notice of the group status of citizens as possible. When you look at how large groups of people have been victimized in the past, you usually find that the government lead the charge against them in the first place. It sure seems to me that hate Crime laws encourage division and are potentially harmful to our society.

I'm willing to listen to arguments, but I am still very uncomfortable with the idea of the goverment making any thought a specific crime.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Jim,

A quick question... are you white?

As I said with the whole Dan Savage thing a few weeks back, it's real easy for white folks to decontextualize everything and talk about issues like "individualism" and "fairness." That's how white middle class liberals get to still be racist and uphold racism while criticising those embarrasing lower-class "hatemongers."

That being said, I'm not sure harsher sentences or the death penalty should be our answer to everything. The death penalty never has and never will work for the benefit of society as a whole. The idea of being allied with the cops and being supportive of giving them more power is pretty alien to me.

I guess like Beth, I can see both sides of this debate.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

So, I'm sitting on the MAX listening to NPR this morning and coverage of the Texas trial of the dragging death, and the Mathew Shepard case and also the Church shootings and they're going on about hate crime legislation. When I first heard about the Texas thing everyone was hopping up and down saying 'hate crime' which, while it may be, made me sort of irritated. It seems to me that regardless of the motivation that it took a truly depraved and sick human being to commit such a crime. I felt that saying that he died because he was black sort of belittled his death. He died because those guys were capable of unimaginable horror.

Yes, but their victims were chosen because what made them different made them easier for the perpetrators to kill. They were conditioned to believe that what they were doing would be overlooked, and the laws lend a voice to the victims to counteract the perpetrators' conditioning.

They are irrational and dangerous to our liberty. It is a bitter irony that the people cheering for them are often the same people who critize states like Texas, where we are very tough on criminals.

???

Laws that make people who are easier to kill than you harder to kill, they're irrational and infringe on your liberty? You're going to have to do better than that.

As for cracking down on criminals, aren't something like 75% of the people on deathrow Black? Aren't, at most, half of all the people in jail Black? Are you telling me that Black people, for the most part, have the decency to commit crimes mostly in states that prosecute for capital offenses? Yeah, Jim, Texans are really coming acros as champions of liberty.

Hate crime laws are really "thought crime" laws. They require the goverment to see into the minds of the accused, rather than make a judgment that an actual physical act was committed.

Well, let's see, the perps in the dragging death demonstrated a predisposition to dislike the ethnicity of the man they killed, by witnessed accounts of how their words and actions matched up. (Words that were easier to say, because it's harder for, say, Capricorn supremicists to chant, "Die, Libras, Die!" They can put on their white sheets and their goat heads, and burn, I don't know, goats, on the lawns of all the Sagitarians in town, and throw the fear of Pan into them.)

Are there any crimes that couldn't be described as thought crimes? I didn't mean yank that purse out of that old lady's hand, smash her head in the ground, and laughed until snot shot outta my nose. But it was an accident, and you can't prove I intended to hurt her, because you can't read my mind! You can't give me the death penalty for something you can't prove I intended!

Again, you're going to have to do better than calling the "thought crime" card.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Something in Jim's message made me think he started this thread. These are from Jim's original remarks:

If a Jewish person were to kill a neo-Nazi should he be tried twice (murder and hate crime) or given extra punishment because he hated Nazis as a group?

No, because the Jew doesn't have the support to kill Neo-Nazis that the Neo-Nazis have to kill Jews. Without anti-Semitism, there could still be a Jewish people. Without Jews, there could be no anti-Semitic organizations. The Neo-Nazis are a group that exists to destroy other cultures. The extra laws are there to discourage violent acts the hate-talking destroyers of culture freely admit that they predisposed to do. In Soup-Nazi speak: No extra punishment for Jews!

Why not just punish criminals according to the provable physical acts they commit, without regard to the "group status" of the victim?

Because "group status" makes a victim an easier target. You're right in that violent criminals are violent criminals first, and whatever else the hell they are second. But the point of criminal law is to discourage the violent act in the first place. If the people who are inclined to break the law are also inclined to make victims out of people because how they look or how they act lead them to believe they would make an easier target... well, I really have no idea what you're complaining about. Are you sure you're interested in a fair discussion, Jim?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

No, Jim didn't start this thread, Mike. And I'm going to ask you not to make every argument personal -- there was no reason for the comment about Jim not being open to fair discussion. Jim is very conservative but he's one of my long-time, supportive readers despite our political differences, so I'd say he is definitely someone who is willing to listen to other viewpoints -- even if they don't change his mind.

And just to clarify, at least under California's hate crime statutes, a Jewish person who killed a Neo-Nazi might not be guilty of a hate crime, but it wouldn't be because of the Jewish person's status -- it would be because "Neo-Nazi" isn't the same as race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. It's a chosen affiliation. (You know, political affiliation might be included in the hate crime law. I'd have to look that up.) If I start killing a bunch of Avon ladies just because they are Avon ladies, it's not a hate crime -- I would be eligible for the death penalty if I committed multiple murders, but not because Avon ladies are a protected class.

Basically, hate crimes protect groups that have group characteristics that they did not choose and cannot change. (Religion, of course, is included in there because of its historical protection under our constitution.)

An aside, because someone mentioned Neo-Nazis: if you hang around any scene that includes "nonracist" skinheads, you will eventually hear some skinhead whine about how everyone is prejudiced against skinheads because of the media, and how that's just as bad as being prejudiced against black people. Which is perfectly stupid, because any bonehead who chooses to shave his head and walk around in braces can hardly claim surprise when it turns out people adopt a certain perception about him, i.e., that he's a conformist who likes to hang around with violent people who look exactly like him. Possibly opinions that go beyond that are unfair and based on prejudice, but it is not the same thing as forming opinions about someone based on the color of his skin.

But back on topic, a Jewish man would be guilty of a hate crime if he killed someone because he was of German descent. I believe California's hate crime laws have been used to prosecute African Americans accused of racially based crimes against white people.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Beth, thanks for answering my hypothetical question, your answer makes sense. I'm pretty sure that existing hate crime laws are used against blacks about as often as they are used against whites. If I am wrong about this someone please correct me.

Mike, the highly emotional tone of your answers tends to confirm my gut instinct that hate crimes are primarily designed to make their proponents feel good about themselves rather than to actually deter or punish crime. If you had a more rational argument you wouldn't need to attack me for sincerely asking a question.

It's a good thing to feel passion about seeing that justice is available to all and that past wrongs be righted. But passion must be tempered with reason, or all may find their freedom diminished.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Jim, I'm basically on your side, and agree that on the face of it, hate crime legislation looks pointless: murder is already illegal, so why do we need additional legislation punishing murderers?

However, one of my friends made a really good point about this issue once. He said that he looks at it in these terms: say a bunch of guys go out and beat up a gay man simply because he is gay. The case comes before a judge who happens to harbor not a little homophobia himself. The judge therefore sentences the men to little more than a slap on the wrist.. let's say, community service and a week in jail.

Hate crime legislation could ensure that those men get a minimum of six months in jail, or something to that effect, essentially tying the judge's hands and making it impossible for him to simply give guilty defendants a slap on the wrist.

I'm still not sure how I stand on this issue, but I think that's a really good point.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Mike, the highly emotional tone of your answers tends to confirm my gut instinct that hate crimes are primarily designed to make their proponents feel good about themselves rather than to actually deter or punish crime. If you had a more rational argument you wouldn't need to attack me for sincerely asking a question.

emotional adj. 1. exhibiting, affected with, arousing a strong feeling of joy, sorrow, or hate. 2. exhibiting a state of mental agitation or disturbance.

My personal agenda of being disturbed by your questions confirms your personal agenda that hate crime laws are bad? Your personal agenda is more rational than my personal agenda? Who's trying to police whose thoughts here?

When I said Yes, but their victims were chosen because what made them different made them easier for the perpetrators to kill. They were conditioned to believe that what they were doing would be overlooked, and the laws lend a voice to the victims to counteract the perpetrators' conditioning, what part of my reasoning stood out as particularly irrational?

Beth, I'm sorry my honesty looks like personal attacks to you. Please feel free to e-mail me any unfair comments I've made, and I will apologize for them, in a setting that is convenient for you. Thanks for the legal clarifications.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

If you had a more rational argument you wouldn't need to attack me for sincerely asking a question.

You have a right to ask your questions. I'm sorry that the answers I have to give make you feel uncomfortable. I don't know if what I have to say is true. But I do know I'm being honest, and the truth isn't babyfood. Just because there are questions with no babyfood answers, I'm not inclined to consider it an attack when mine are answered.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

This United States already has too many laws that are inadequately inforced to begin with. We have murders getting out of jail early, convicted rapists and child molesters walk the streets, and white collar crimes go virtually unpunished. What makes anyone think that passing hate crime legislation will make a difference? The courts already do not properly punish those who commit violent acts of crimes against others as it is.
I do understand the point of hate crime legislation, but one thing kind of worries me. Say Male 1 and Male 2 get into a fight over a spilt beer. Male 2 dies as a result of the fight. Unbeknownst to Male 1, Male 2 was a gay man. Is that a hate crime? On the other hand, what if Male 1 really did know that Male 2 was gay and used the spilt beer as an excuse for the fight. The prosecutor not only has to prove murder, but he/she has to prove the hate element as well. Not all hate crimes are clear-cut and it is here that both parties can fall victim to injustice.
A crime is a crime no matter who it is committed against. Sadly, the mere fact that this discussion exists only shows how the court/judicial system has failed. We do not have laws. We have a bunch of words that are interpreted and exploited differently by lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.
Not sure if I did the breaks correctly.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

What makes anyone think that passing hate crime legislation will make a difference?

A crime is a crime no matter who it is committed against.

Yes, but in the hate crime, the victim is chosen because he or she is different. The hate crime laws give voice to the victims to counter the perpetrators' conditioning. The difference passing hate crime legislation will make may not make a difference you like, but that doesn't mean that they will offer no relief to good people who are different from the majority, and so are encouraged to remain quiet. (Aren't there people in your lives who's only interest in you is your silence? It's a discipline that is too easily applied to victims of race and gender modelled violence, because they are different. I'm sorry, but attacks on hate crime legislation based on too many laws are irrational, when a flat tax rate would mean that every taxpayer could send in their income tax every year on a postcard, it's an inconsistency that smacks of why can't you just know your place and suck it up? While I don't mean to say that this is what's going on in anyone's brain in this forum, it gives ammunition to those who think that way, as does my silence.)

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm not sure I'd feel better as a victim to know I was attacked because I had money, or because the person was pissed off at me or someone who knows me, than if it was because I'm a woman or I'm white. I rather assume that 'hatred' is involved anywhere where deliberate violence and intent to injure is happening. I find it a little chilling to consider that some people are doing it with no high emotion involved at all.

I am not *against* hate crime law exactly, I'm just a little disturbed by what it is saying - that it's more ok, somehow, to hurt, torture or kill someone as long as you are objective about it and don't have anything against your victim, personally. Isn't that giving more leeway to sociopaths?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Just because we have too many laws already does not make it impossible to come up with a good new law. That is just not an argument against the validity of new laws.

Let's face it; the way this works is that the lawmakers spot a problem, and they throw a new law or two at it. It makes them feel good, like they're doing something to combat the problem.

As ineffective as it is, I don't have a problem with it. The more laws we have to lock up the bad guys, the better, as far as I'm concerned. Laws are tools, and the pi.., er, law enforcement officers, need all the tools they can get.

We certainly do not want to create laws that can be misused, or diminish the freedoms of law abiding citizens. I don't see either of these as being a problem with hate crime laws.

As to the hypothetical example above, where we do not know if the guy was killed because he was gay or not: If the prosecutor cannot prove it was a hate crime, he gets let off. That's how all laws work. What is the problem?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm not sure I'd feel better as a victim to know I was attacked because I had money, or because the person was pissed off at me or someone who knows me, than if it was because I'm a woman or I'm white.

I'm just a little disturbed by what it is saying - that it's more ok, somehow, to hurt, torture or kill someone as long as you are objective about it and don't have anything against your victim, personally. Isn't that giving more leeway to sociopaths?

Part of the gratification for attacking someone with money is the money. You can defend your life by giving up the money. Part of the gratification for the hate crime is that it is so easy. Everyone at the bar are going to want to buy me some drinks when I tell them how I kicked in the teeth of that queer. Even if the person thinking that is wrong about his drinking buddies, it doesn't take much talk for that person to think that way. To appease the crime of theft, the victim has to give in to the injustice of giving up their money. To appease the appetite of the hate crime, the victim has to suffer.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm not in favor of hate crime legislation. What about this?

I don't think it's fair that someone could be punished more for committing a crime against someone else due to their religion, color, political affiliation or anything else than what they might be punished for by committing a crime against me or someone in my family. A crime is a crime. I think the punishment should be equal for anyone committing a crime, based on what they actually did. I don't think the fact that they hated the color of the person or anything else about the person should matter.

What if I'm black and I'm with a white friend, and let's say we are robbed at gunpoint by a white person. If the perpetrator says he robbed me "just because of my color", should he be given a harsher sentence for robbing me than the sentence for robbing my friend? What if he stole more money from my friend? Do you see what I'm saying? It's just not fair, a robbery is a robbery.

Where do you stop at defining a hate crime? What if someone kills me because they don't like my hair color? What if they have a history of hating people with my hair color? Do you add that to the law? Where does it end?

And now I'll bow out and observe what follows. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm just a little disturbed by what it is saying - that it's more ok, somehow, to hurt, torture or kill someone as long as you are objective about it and don't have anything against your victim

That's already the case: first degree murder -vs- second degree murder -vs- manslaughter (And is it just me, or isn't it about time they made womanslaughter illegal too!) The distinction has never bothered me.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Good point, Dave, but that's not what I mean. 'hate crimes' can already be covered under those definitions.
What the specifics are vary from state to state (and country), but basically manslaughter is without intent to kill - driving recklessly, or punching someone out in a bar and killing them when you really only intended to deck them. I can see where that might have been what it sounded like I was saying but I wasn't. I am talking cold blood "I don't care who or what you are, I want the $23.00 you have in your wallet" or "I'm pissed at my girlfriend, so I'm going to go shoot all 13 people in her office because as long as I'm killing her I might as well go whole hog."

I don't see that negation of the individuality of the victim as being in any way better than negation by virtue of their race - it just broadens the scope of 'people who mean nothing to me' to cover everyone.

The negation is wrong, and the focus (I think) should be on severe penalty for the crimes that are already there and *enforcing* them - holding the legal system responsible for not letting their own prejudices get in the way, rather than suggest in any way that it's more ok to kill or torment someone as long as you aren't doing it out of a certain select form of bigotry.

I also know in at least some states there are already certain protected people that will cause a non-premeditated murder (a so- called 'crime of passion') to be a 1st degree murder, like children for instance, or police officers. It seems the existing laws, if enforced properly should be enough.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

When a crime is labeled as a hate crime, then you are singling out an attack over another attack. What is the difference between me (white male) getting killed for my money and a gay guy getting killed because he is gay? Should the person who killed the gay guy get more of a punishment than the guy who killed me? If that is so, then you are basically saying that one life is worth more than the other. If someone commits murder, that person should be in prison for the rest of his/her life. Forget the death penalty, that is the easy way out for the criminal.
Hate crimes effect everybody, including me. I could be just as easily killed by a white hating non-white guy just because I am white. However, I would hope that my killer would be charged with "killing a man" and not "killing a white man."
To me, unless a child is involved, a crime is a crime no matter who the victim. I personally think that hate crime laws will only widen the rift between people and their differences because it singles out groups of people.
I agree with Mike's "voice to the victims to counter the perpetrators' conditioning" statement. It could help the healing process.
I suppose we should get use to these kinds of discussions and thoughts. Unfortunately, there will always be ignorant people who hate others just because of race, religion, sexual preference, etc.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Hate crime laws do not say that one life is worth more than another. They say that one motive for committing a crime is worth more time in jail than another. This has always been the case. What's wrong with firming it up with an extra law?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I think a person should be just as criminally responsible for assaulting a person over money as he is assaulting a person over race, sexual preference, etc. In one case, the difference is skin color, etc. The other is a difference over who has the money, sneakers, jacket, etc. Both acts are just as violent and stupid.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

A crime is a crime. I think the punishment should be equal for anyone committing a crime, based on what they actually did. I don't think the fact that they hated the color of the person or anything else about the person should matter.

How about the gender of the person, Joy? In and of itself, rape isn't much more than (I'm not a legal expert), I'm guessing, assault. Isn't that rapist just a guy who beat someone up, who happened to be a woman? I don't think so, and I think that the hate crime laws are an attempt to stretch that same standard to victims who fit other vulnerable demographics of society.

Lynda mentioned the distinction of manslaughter as without the intent to kill. Who is the violent racist more likely to kill accidentally, the white guys he mostly leaves alone, or the Black guys he finds on the 2 or 3 days out of the year he chooses to act on his unwholesome appetites?

Should the person who killed the gay guy get more of a punishment than the guy who killed me [robbing me]? If that is so, then you are basically saying that one life is worth more than the other.

Whether you like to think so or not, it's easier to kill the gay guy than it is to kill you, simply because the gay guy is more likely to go through more beatings in a year than you are. People think they can get away with it. I agree that the hate crime legislation is divisive in the manner you describe, but it's a pure unfairness to entertain the idea that the foundation of your fears and the foundation of the fears of that gay guy are equal. The gay guy is easier to kill than the white guy. (Of course, I'm as least as likely to be a murder victim as most of the people reading this, so any attempt to establish fairness on my part must be an irrational personal attack to whom I reply.)

I didn't mean to kill the fag! He just died on me when I was beating him up! Beating up a gay guy is not the same as beating up you or me. I don't consider it any great risk to my dignity to accept this.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Good point Mike, hopefully I can add to it.

There are certain groups that need extra protection. Poeple here are speaking of fairness. Is it fair a gay guy (for example) is more likely to get beat up than the average person? Of course not. The gay guy needs extra protection, and the lawmakers are attempting to give it to him.

Do we really think minorities should just have to live with the fact that they are singled out for these types of crimes? How is that fair?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

A lot of the discussion here reflects a basic misunderstanding of how and why and how much we punish criminals for their actions. I can see both sides of the hate crimes debate, but there's a lot of misunderstanding here, so let me see if I can clear it up.

Differentiating between crimes that have the same result (i.e., dead human being) has nothing to do with the value we assign to those human beings. It has to do with culpability -- i.e., how responsible we think the perpetrator is -- and danger to society.

If you are driving your car, and your toddler climbs out of her carseat and tries to jump out the window, and you run a red light and hit me while I'm in the crosswalk, I am dead. I am an innocent victim and I'm dead, and it doesn't make any difference to me that you didn't do it on purpose. I'm just as dead as I would be if you killed me for my shoes or for the color of my skin or because I pissed you off in a bar fight or because I killed one of your loved ones.

The fact is that the person who runs the stop sign and kills me accidentally will be punished less severely than someone who killed me in the heat of passion, or over a drug deal gone bad, or because of my sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that we're saying my life doesn't matter, or that I'm less valuable as a victim than any other victim.

I think it may very well be true that hate crime legislation hurts more than it helps, if only because people are so intent on misunderstanding the function and purpose of our laws that it's bound to be divisive. But there is nothing objectively wrong with society, through elected officials, deciding that racially motivated crimes are worse than other crimes because they do more harm to society than heat of passion crimes or financially motivated crimes or accidental crimes, and punishing them accordingly. You are free to disagree with that assessment, and to let your elected officials know that.

Just understand that hate crime statutes don't do anything that hasn't been done for eons: drugs and prostitution are illegal because we think they hurt us as a society, not because of harm to specific victims. Drunk drivers are severely punished even if they don't intend to hurt anyone and even if they don't actually hurt anyone, because we think drunk driving hurts society. Obviously, enough people think that racially motivated and other bias crimes hurt society more than other than other types of crimes, so we passed some hate crime legislation to increase the punishment for crimes that are motivated by bias. It's nothing new, it's nothing unique, and it has not one damn thing to do with whether we think a white victim is less valuable than a black one.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Not at *all*. It's not right that anyone - for any reason - should have to deal with an increased likelihood of being assaulted - whether it's because they are gay, or for racist reasons, or due to domestic violence, or because they live in a violent neigbhorhood where same-race violence is high.

The assault itself should be dealt with - which means enforcing current laws properly. Not dealing with one motive for it seriously, while continuing to neglect other motives.

When society doesn't turn and look away from an assault that is black on black because it's just a bad neighborhood and them's the breaks, or overlook a situation where kids or spouses are being abused because it's a private matter ('and besides they're just trailor trash and you know how they are'), then I think it would be safe to say that to root out the remaining violence based solely on hostile bigotry takes extra steps.

But hate crime laws - however hideous such crimes are, and they are - won't give protection to these other groups who also have an increased risk of violence done to them, and no protection under the law, because the laws simply aren't adequately enforced.

Enforce the existing laws against violence across the board, and everyone is protected. Deciding one motive for what is unacceptable while shrugging off other (to my mind) equally heinous motives doesn't address the real issue, which is the nonacceptability of using violence to deal with one's disatisfaction with life.

There are too many other widespread problems that result in violence that are also a jeopardy to society as a whole, and they aren't being corrected through this. I'm not suggesting a lightening of the sentences for those who DO fall into the hate crime category - I'm suggesting that same level of seriousness should be applied across the board.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I do think it stinks that a gay person has to worry more about being attacked than I do, but I just think that we are opening a huge barrel of monkeys with hate crime laws. When/if hate crime legislation is passed, I certainly will not be upset. I do understand it's intent.
I was discussing this topic with my friend, who is gay, and we both came up with a related question. If a "straight" guy beats up a gay guy solely because he's gay, he is labeled as a gay basher or as homophobic. What do you call a gay guy who beats up a straight guy solely because he is straight?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I'm suggesting that same level of seriousness should be applied across the board.

I don't have any facts on hand to confirm this, but I'm thinking that something similar to a 80:20 relationship exists with hate crimes, where a disproportionate relationship between hate crimes and other violent crimes exists. (I could have sworn Peter Jennings said something about this, but I don't know for sure.) Holding up the benefits of the 80% (or whatever disproportionately high number), because you haven't figured out how to enforce the other 20%... when human beings make something work, it isn't done like that, across the board, it's done piecemeal. The US didn't have railroads because anyone set out to invent the steam engine. The steam engine was pirated from a water pump to drain mines. Nobody set out to invent the cannon. The technique to build the cannon was pirated from bell-making techniques. Nobody set out to invent the computer. The use of punch cards was pirated from a fancy loom. Society is engineered piecemeal, not across the board.

Part of the conventional wisdom of the 80/20 rule is that the disproportionately small part of the problem (the remaining 20) requires 80% (or whatever disproportionately large number) of problem solving. To hold up the disproportionately large percentage of the victims, who can be helped out with such a small proportion of the problem solving... to be so generous with their safety seems evil.

What do you call a gay guy who beats up a straight guy solely because he is straight?

I don't know. If you're implying that their is unfairness in the labelling that goes on in these illegal exchanges, I'm sorry I haven't resolved that for you. I'm sorry I can't get all uptight over the concerns of those who conveniently turn off and turn on their compulsions to see fairness executed homogeneously. Why minorities should be denied the benefits of piecemeal social engineering, again, seems evil.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

If it truly is 80/20, I'd be inclined to agree with you, Mike. But I can't buy that same-race violence and domestic violence adds up to only 20% of the total illegal violence happening - less after you include 'random' events like robberies and the like.

Here in DC, same-race violence is happening every single day, especially among teens and young adults, and it's an ongoing controversy about why such things are so 'accepted' that they don't even make the news most of the time. I don't think that facet is unique to this area.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

concerning my question posted earlier;
What do you call a gay guy who beats up astraight guy solely because he is straight?
it was and is a serious question. i was NOT implying anything. i never mentioned unfairness in any way, you have read into it wrong. my freind and i were honestly curious if there was a "label" for such a person or incident.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

But I can't buy that same-race violence and domestic violence adds up to only 20% of the total illegal violence happening

I didn't have any hard facts. Actually, now that I see your words, same-race violence, domestic violence, I do believe the statistics favor your perspective. The largest demographic that suffers from violent crime, the last I heard, were black men, and they were most likely to be victims of other black men. But the black on black crime is trickier than it looks, because it's harder for young black men to identify with any positive role-models. Malcolm X showed scholastic aptitude, but was railroaded into a life of manual labor. The only role models he was exposed to were manual laborers and criminals, and learned to emmulate the latter (he went to jail for burglery, and datin' white wimmen). What you call the real issue, the nonacceptability of using violence to deal with one's disatisfaction with life, is an option that can't be taken seriously by someone of that kind of upbringing. These guys are already killing each other, so why should they be afraid of stiffer sentencing?

Your example of domestic violence is also tricky. The victims have been conditioned to set themselves up for their victimhood, but are no less victims of violence. While I still think hate crime legislation still represents a little bit of problem solving to fix a disproportionately large problem, being reminded how disproportionately larger the other segments are gives me reason enough to withdraw from the discussion. (Feel free to breathe your sighs of relief now.)

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

it was and is a serious question. i was NOT implying anything.

I'm sorry I inferred wrong.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Well, I don't have any "hard facts"-- or really any facts at all-- at my disposal, and I can't be bothered to find any, so I'm thinking I will make some up based on what I seem to remember I heard on TV. And I don't know anything about the law-- not how it is made, not the theory behind it, and not how it is enforced-- but I'm thinking that won't slow me down either.
I do have plenty of "ideas" though, and even my most off-the-cuff and unconsidered opinion is better than your argument-- because I am better than you! (You, most likely, are EVIL. Or at least that will be my automatic assumption. And you suggest otherwise, I may apologize, but I am more likely to continue insulting you and accusing you of trying to control my thoughts, since disagreeing with me is itself evidence of EVIL thought-controlling ambition.)
But on the slim chance you are not evil, that you are good (i.e. believe all the same things that I believe) my "ideas" about how "society" (and the unrelated and often false historical trivia that accompanies them) free of charge) may give you the strength and the will to FIGHT evil, strength and will only I can provide-- and for that you should feel very grateful.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Fergus,

I'm sensing that something I said somehow bothers you. I can't be sure, because I haven't said that I was better than anyone else, and if I've insulted anyone, and I haven't apologized for it, no one has pointed out what I said that was so insulting. In fact, no one is telling me how I'm treating this forum differently than anyone else is treating this forum. A question is asked, and I've made an effort to give an honest answer. Like I said, I sense that something I said bothers you, but I just can't be sure. Let me see if I can break down your last post:

Well, I don't have any "hard facts"-- or really any facts at all-- at my disposal, and I can't be bothered to find any, so I'm thinking I will make some up based on what I seem to remember I heard on TV.

Relying on written record is a relatively recent phenomena to the human species. The epic poems credited to Homer where synthesized when knowledge relied on an oral tradition. I'm sorry for doing something man has done for 10,000 years.

And I don't know anything about the law-- not how it is made, not the theory behind it, and not how it is enforced-- but I'm thinking that won't slow me down either.

I'm sorry that I'm under the impression that the law serves me and not the other way around. I believe I've been as consistent in inviting critique of my interpretation as anyone else.

I do have plenty of "ideas" though, and even my most off-the-cuff and unconsidered opinion is better than your argument-- because I am better than you! (You, most likely, are EVIL. Or at least that will be my automatic assumption. And you suggest otherwise, I may apologize, but I am more likely to continue insulting you and accusing you of trying to control my thoughts, since disagreeing with me is itself evidence of EVIL thought-controlling ambition.)

I believe I have been as consistant as anyone else in inviting correction of my ideas.

I was under the impression that minimizing evil was a good thing. I am not above evil appetites, and I assume that others are not above accepting this in themselves also. Am I wrong? Tell me how it is with you?

But on the slim chance you are not evil, that you are good (i.e. believe all the same things that I believe) my "ideas" about how "society" (and the unrelated and often false historical trivia that accompanies them) free of charge) may give you the strength and the will to FIGHT evil, strength and will only I can provide-- and for that you should feel very grateful.

Again, I believe I have been as consistant as anyone else in inviting correction of my ideas. If any of my historical trivia is unrelated or false, you seem to be volunteering to pointing it out to me. I'm ready whenever you are.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

This hate crime thread has bothered me from the get-go. On the one hand, I do think that white people who participate in lynching black people -- like the three men in Jasper, Texas did -- should be punished in the most extreme way. Lynching has killed a lot of people. Historically, in many places, it was murder under the color of law. I see it as a clear and present danger to the civil order, and I agree with the policy of imposing massive penalties as a deterrent to it.

On the other hand, should every minority group be so protected? It isn't clear to me that the answer is yes. Imagine a nineteen-year- old skinhead who hasn't attacked anybody, but who *has* just exercised his First Amendment rights by going around shouting hateful racist propaganda in a White Pride parade. Now imagine a nineteen- year-old gay man who has just exercised his First Amendment rights by going around shouting pro-gay-rights propaganda in a gay pride parade. Imagine that each of them gets beaten up on his way home by people who disagree with him.

How do we put a moral separation between the criminals who beat up these citizens? Remember, each of these citizens was exercising a protected right. If society punishes one set of attackers more than another, is society doing anything more than choosing a side? (I.e., are we doing anything more than saying skinheads are wrong and gay rights activists are right?)

I guess there's nothing wrong with permitting a legislature to choose sides in these debates -- as long as we remember that when the wind changes, the skinhead and the gay rights marcher could wind up on opposite sides of the fence, so that the skinhead's attackers serve more time for intefering with a "legitimate political debate," and the gay man's attackers are let off lightly for acting out their sense of offense against hearing a "defense of a depraved lifestyle."

Sadly, I don't see any way out of the hate crimes definition. As Beth observed, legislatures investigate mens rea all of the time. Still, this seems to me like a place for caution.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

RESPONSE TO MIKE'S COMMENT..

How about the gender of the person, Joy? In and of itself, rape isn't much more than (I'm not a legal expert), I'm guessing, assault. Isn't that rapist just a guy who beat someone up, who happened to be a woman? I don't think so, and I think that the hate crime laws are an attempt to stretch that same standard to victims who fit other vulnerable demographics of society.

Mike, rape is rape. It is possible for a man to rape another man (ever see Deliverance or Pulp Fiction?). I have heard it's possible for a woman to rape a man. If a person is convicted of rape, I don't think a man should be given a harsher treatment for the rape of a woman than of another man.

You call the rapist "just a guy who beat someone up". Well, it's possible to beat someone up without raping them. It's possible to rape someone without beating them up. So I'm not sure what you meant by that.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

You call the rapist "just a guy who beat someone up". Well, it's possible to beat someone up without raping them.

Why should an assault with penetration be treated differently to an assault with a punch to the genitals?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

"I do think that white people who participate in lynching black people -- like the three men in Jasper, Texas did -- should be punished in the most extreme way. Lynching has killed a lot of people".

Two of the three criminals who murdered James Byrd got the death penality. The third got life. Are there additional punishments that could have been imposed? I suspect it will be awhile before any other rasicts try to lynch a black person in Jasper county. By the way, the juries were mostly white.

There has been a significant decrease in crime here in Texas in the last four years. Nobody really knows why, but reform of the parole system, a lot of new prisons, more district courts (hence less waiting for trial dates), and a good concealed weapons law have all helped. The one thing I wish "they" would pass is a "life without parole" option in capital murder cases. Under the present system paroles are very hard to get (for example, no sex offenders have been paroled in the last 3 years) but it's still possible in theory. Juries in Texas are told if parole is possible, but not given any data as to how likly parole might be. This worried the jury I served on a lot.

I am not opposed to the death penality in cases when the state can prove guilt with overwhelming evidence. I don't trust the goverment much at all though, so in cases where guilt is established "beyond a resonable doubt, but where the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming then a true life sentance seems more appropriate.

I did learn that we already have a hate crime law here in Texas, but it's seldom used because it is pretty vague.

All ya'll pro-hate crime posters, please accept my thanks. I still don't agree with you, but at least I have a better understanding of where ya'll are coming from.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Correction to my last post, there are no "pro hate-crime" posters here! What I should have said was "Thanks to the pro hate-crime LAW" posters.

Sorry.

Jim

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Mike -
It's obvious from your comment about rape vs. being punched in the genitals that you've never been raped. If you had, you would know that no matter how many times you get hit, no matter how many times you get punched, there is nothing, nothing that comes close to being raped.

In my life, I've been shot at, I've been in fist fights, I've been attacked, I've been knifed. I've also been raped, and nothing has ever come close to the terror and the violation that being raped caused me.

I recently wrote about it in my journal, and the experience can be found here. And believe me, nothing else in the world comes close to it.

-Meghan

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

It's obvious from your comment about rape vs. being punched in the genitals that you've never been raped.

Yes, and by that same token, I think that the people who are not subject to benefit from the hate crime laws should not rely so heavily on the rational thinking that ccauses them to close their minds to supporting such laws, but understand that the push to enact such laws come from a legitimate need. People who have almost no chance of being raped support rape laws, and no one question their fairness. Everyone thinks prosecution of rape is good. The opposition to the hate crime laws seems like an unfair over-reaction.

I'm sorry if you took my question as belittlement of your struggle.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Hold on, Mike.... are you seeing, in anyone's responses here, anything that sounds even vaguely like "aw, give the poor little racists a break..."?

No one is suggesting that, that I know of. We are arguing equal application.

You are very sadly mistaken if you believe that rape is a crime where only females risk being victims - but it is a good example of unfair application, in that men who are raped are either told to keep it very quiet for their own sake, or not taken seriously and ridiculed for it. (I'd be interested in what the stats are for sentencing in those cases that actually make it to trial, but I have no numbers to offer for that) Women - and only those in certain social stratospheres - are finally beginning to be able to push past those barriers, but men who have been raped are still firmly stuck where we have been in the past.

Equal application of the law for the crime itself, rather than deciding that it's 'ugly, but understandable' in some cases - that's what's being argued, and all that is being argued.

By adding an extra layer to the current laws, we are admitting that the current laws - on their own - just aren't enforceable. And that leaves everyone who isn't covered under the extra layer unprotected by the law.

I'm not sure why anyone would even dispute that the laws that *do* exist need to be better enforced?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Because you only see one side of it, Lynda. You see crime victims whose cases aren't prosecuted or who don't get what they think is "justice." I see people who are charged to the hilt by overzealous prosecutors just because a case is a hot button issue, or because a conviction will look good on the prosecutor's record.

I know there are specific examples of cases that don't get prosecuted the way they should, but I swear, whenever I hear someone talking about "enforce the existing laws!" I want to scream. When do existing laws not get enforced? When there's not enough evidence for a conviction. When victims are unwilling to testify and the other alternative is to hold them in contempt and put them in jail if they refuse. Or, I'll grant you, back ten or fifteen years ago when the climate was a lot different than it is now.

News flash: we've had well over a decade of everyone falling all over themselves to be tough on crime. If the existing laws weren't being enforced, I wouldn't have a dozen clients in prison for minor offenses, and we wouldn't be building new prisons.

I'm really tired of the way the media harps on the occasional case where someone "got away" with something, as if we should just dispense with the whole reasonable doubt idea -- which, I'm sorry, means that some guilty people go free -- when the truth is, the pendulum swung the other way a long time ago.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Oops. Correct that. I meant a dozen clients doing LIFE in prison for petty offenses.

And I've handled dozens of sex crimes -- virtually all with victims who were poor, many who knew the perpetrator, several who were married to or dating the perpetrator -- and with one exception where the victim agreed to a slap on the wrist plea agreement, they all got lengthy prison sentences. There is conventional wisdom out there that sex crimes, child molestation, and spousal rape go unpunished or are punished very lightly. Generally speaking, the conventional wisdom is about ten years out of date.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

*nod* I will grant you, my own knowledge is 15 years and three months out of date. The judicial side of it was at a time when 'spousal rape' was something comedians made jokes about, and politicians berated those 'freaks' who wanted to suggest such a thing was possible. I never bothered to try to get it into court of law.

I was more interested in getting a cop to show up at the door that wouldn't drive the jerk around the block for 10 minutes before depositing him back home.

Yes, I know there is now the 'someone's going to go to jail' law - and that's another area like this one that I get squicky thinking about it either way, but over all it's better than the alternative...because of *course* the victim's going to keep quiet. For one thing, her head's as turned inside out as a Vietnam POW... for another thing, unless they plan to keep him there a loooong time, she knows real well just how good his memory for 'betrayal' goes.

Do I have answers for all that? No. And yes, I do get disturbed and I always will when I hear that it's the victim's fault, somehow, like that makes it understandable. But I am within sight right now of a house that gets the cops called so many times that unless they had dead bodies swinging from the trees, the police wouldnt' do anything.... they roll their eyes, take a statement and leave. Because it's 'that kind' of people, and that's just how they are. I maybe don't have all the answers, but I know that when Mr. Drunk is bashing Mrs. Drunk into the wall, and the kids are screaming from inside the closet to avoid flying glass, that turning away because they aren't 'decent citizens' and there's no point in wasting the paperwork cos they'll be back at it again next week is *wrong*.

I live a short distance from the Capital where there are entire neighborhoods where every morning brings with it a body count that doesn't even get reported in the Post, and taxis dont go there, the police don't go there - no one goes there, and whatever happens there never makes it to a court room becuase it's been declared - by the absense of adequate police enforcement, or whimsical police enforcement (go make a token round up of the homeless when some hotshot is passing through), and by the whole lot of us who pretend it doesn't exist - a law free zone.

Now it seems to me that those messed up, dysfunctional human beings *also* merit protection under the law. Then maybe the next generation of them won't be so messed up.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Hold on, Mike.... are you seeing, in anyone's responses here, anything that sounds even vaguely like "aw, give the poor little racists a break..."?

You are very sadly mistaken if you believe that rape is a crime where only females risk being victims.

I am at low risk to be raped. I am also at low risk for most assaults (I was mugged once, but did that relaxation drop little kids do when they don't want you to take them to sleep, and ran away like a bunny). I still understand why prosecuting rape is good, and I extend that same understanding for the hate crime laws. If you infer "aw, give the poor little racists a break..." from the inconsistency I have pointed out, it's not because of any interpretation I've made. All I've done is tell you how I've applied the abstract leap I've made for one decision on an issue to another.

This just tells me that most men go along with prosecuting rape is good not out of compassion from any abstract thinking they are are applying, but because of compassion they learned from conditioning. Perhaps that explains Fergus's strong reaction to my messages. I don't mean this to describe this as a deficiency, but maybe Fergus is not yet at the point in his/her life where he/she can apply analogies to solving problems abstractly. Maybe without realizing that I'm just starting to do this, my attempts at problem solving in this fashion looks like "you're a racist if you don't agree with me."

Anyway, I don't think anyone is bigotted just because they don't think like me, especially now that I'm thinking that the inconsistency I've pointed out may be due to conditioning. I wasn't thinking anyone is thinking "aw, give the poor little racists a break..." If anything I think I'm just taking Lynda's "across the board" fairness as far as I can. As I've said before, if anything I say arms someone else to carry this further, then that would make my day.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

In my life, I've been shot at, I've been in fist fights, I've been attacked, I've been knifed. I've also been raped, and nothing has ever come close to the terror and the violation that being raped caused me.

That may be true for you, based on your experience, but it does not generally follow that "nothing comes close to being raped."

I submit that if you were given a vicious, prolonged beating, by a group of thugs, for nothing other than the color of your skin, it may well come close... if you lived through it.

Although rape laws protect mainly women, there is nothing in the law that says they can only protect women. This brings up an interesting point. Are these hate-crime laws really being drafted in such as way as to make it a hate crime only if "gays," or "hispanics," or other specifically named groups are the victims? That would be pretty silly. Or do the laws speak of the motivation for such a crime as being related to sexual orientation, or race? If this is the case, then white and straight people are also protected from hate crimes, and the laws are perfectly fair.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

I think a hate crime law that only protected specific groups would be unconstitutional. Instead, they deal with bias based on national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation (well, some of them do; many don't include sexual orientation), etc. -- so yes, they would protect a straight person who was attacked by a gay person because of his sexual orientation.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

An aside: How do you 'Mericans manage to implement affirmative action? Isn't it unconstitutional?
(Here in Canada it is specifically exempt in our "Constitution" (Charter of Rights and Freedoms)).

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

(It's been a long time since con law, so someone correct me if I'm wrong here ...)

Congress can distinguish between protected groups if there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Righting past wrongs has been considered a compelling state interest that justifies discrimination in this situation.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

"Relying on written record is a relatively recent phenomena to the human species. The epic poems credited to Homer where synthesized when knowledge relied on an oral tradition. I'm sorry for doing something man has done for 10,000 years." The "knowledge" transmitted by the oral epic tradition involved such "facts" as Odyssues' descent to Hades, the transformation of his crewmen into pigs and wild beasts, etc., the role of the gods in the fall of Troy, etc. Which is to say, Epic is fiction. And most often, it was a fiction propounded to justify (if not exactly to rationalize) the existing social order (martial values, absolute hierarchies). Is this what you are "doing" by making up fictions and passing them off for facts?

This dogmatic (or civilizing, depending on your point of view) function of epic, by the way, doesn't change when epic gets written down-- Milton's divine epic also proposed to "justify the ways of God to man." But writing-- or more precisely, the breaking of the clerical monopoly on literacy, helped to facilitate a change in what counted as knowledge. The technology of the written record-- which you profess indifference to-- was (and indeed remains) one of the most important factors in the development of an empirical method, which (historically) helped to break the alliance between dogmatic church and authoritarian state.

Of course empirical methods too can be used or abused. So with an empirical method comes the obligation not to make stuff up just as it suits us when there are facts (for example actual quantities) involved. (In science, for example-- or in legislation that is justified primarily by reference to actual social consequences, like hate crime legislation.) So your while you apology for doing like they did for 10,000 years is accepted, it doesn't do much for you argument.

As far as reasoning from analogies is concerned, I hope never to arrive at the "point in my life" where my analogical faculty grows so abstract that I am unable to perceive distinctions-- between a crime that is distinguished from others by conduct (sexual assault, for example) and one distinguished from others by motive (sexual assault from bias). I may feel analogous compassion for the victims of each, but feeling compassion is not sufficient logical basis for endorsing particular forms of legislation. And while I am not in fact sure yet where I stand on hate crime legislation, (Beth, I take your point that we make judgements of motive and social impact all the time), there is certainly nothing to be gained in terms of clarity by acting as though the theory behind it is the same as that behind finding rape illegal.

Oh, and Mike, I now understand better your important distinction-- people who disagree with you are not themselves evil, they are "conditioned" by the forces of evil. I regret my misunderstanding

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I don't think Mike's analogy was so bad, although it took me a while to realize where he was going with it. Women are far more likely than men to be victims under rape laws. (In fact, in California, rape means vaginal penetration -- forcible sodomy and other sex assaults are individual crimes and punished separately.) But no one argues for a repeal of rape laws just because a comparable assault on a man is called something else, and the laws only "benefit" women. We don't enact laws to benefit crime victims only; if that were the case, we'd make them hire their own lawyers and handle the matter in civil court. A criminal offense is considered an offense against all of us; thus, a rape or a hate crime statute is not enacted to benefit the particular class of victims likely to fall under its protection, but to protect all of society from that type of crime or the criminals who commit it.

You don't have to rely on compassion to find justification for such laws, either. You can just believe that it's bad for society to have entire groups walking around in fear for their safety, victimized to the point where they can't function, taking vengeance into their own hands, or quietly killing themselves. Which is pretty much what happens when rapes and hate crimes are systematically (or even individually) ignored.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I've been mulling it over too (and doing a bit of reading) and I agree with the analogy too (surprise?) although - and this is off the subject of using rape as an analogy for hate crime and directly pertaining to rape, regarding non-vaginal rape as 'not rape' still harks me back quite unpleasantly to when 'spousal rape' was regarded as an oxymoron, and is also reminding me of the whole 'whats the big deal if you gay folks can't call it marriage'. rationale.

But enough of that - more relevent is that I'm understanding, through your words here and in what I've been reading, that the rational for hate crime laws is not that crimes committed without bias are deemed to be not as bad, but that the bias itself is regarded as damaging to society as a whole, whereas the other crime is less damaging societally and more damaging to the individual.

Yes?

Two questions to toss out as food for thought, and then I think I'm done (and about where I was, which was conflicted on the whole thing, but at least I have a better sense of why, so thank you for tackling this difficult subject matter)...

There are areas where violent crime is rampant and little or no attention is paid by society to what takes place there (other than those members of society that actually have to live with it), where everyone living there from small children to grandmothers are at heightened risk - where being male gives you much lowered odds of making it to adulthood at all, but because the crime usually happens within its boundaries - neighbor on neighbor....

That's every day. And people don't blink. after awhile, they don't even see it... Yet, if that neighborhood is attacked from without, it would be regarded as a 'hate crime' and fall into a different category than the violence that goes on daily.

A five year old girl is shot by the guy down the street because the guy is in a gang that is gunning for her big brother, and it may not even make the papers. That same five year old girl is shot by the guy from the next town over because he doesn't like the color of her skin, and it's a huge issue.

My question ... why is the first not regarded as damaging to society as a whole? Have we unconsciously already agreed to write those neighborhoods off, and regard them as irrelevent and apart from our wider community? Is that hazard to 'society' that one of 'ours' has done something we only accept when it's one of 'them' doing it?

Not expecting an answer exactly....just very uncomfortable at the implications buried in there - and I do NOT believe that consciously anyone is thinking that the problem is that we have to protect 'us' from behaving like 'them' (however you want to define us and them) - but I do think that is the underlying message. What is our definition of society when we apply it to laws? Are these laws for the protection of everyone in this country or not?

My other one is more directly about the hate laws themselves - at least one definition I read was that it was to be confined to a crime done to someone who is identified as a part of group, and has *implication* for that group, in the form of terrorizing and intimidating them. (I'm guessing done with motive to send that group a message, not just *being* biased, but acting from that bias in that particular crime) Now, THAT I could get a good handle on, and helped me in understanding...

So, given that, need it actually be one group to another? Or might internal gangs that act with intent to intimidate and frighten their own neighborhood (same wider 'group', but seen as 'not us' by virtue of not being a part of the gang) also be covered? By gangs, I don't only mean urban gangs, but organizations such as the KKK when they are intimidating their non-KKK white neighbors into remaining silent?

Oh...rats. One more observation. The difficulty with trying to separate bias from non-bias for me, is that I believe most criminals DO act with bias, of some sort, if it's only "I am the sole member of the group of people I think count, and you - the rest of the world - aren't."

Ok, that's it... thanks for the discussion. You guys gave me a lot to think about.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Well, when you're talking about inner city crime not being prosecuted the way it should be, obviously you're dealing with a lot of factors that don't have anything to do with the way the laws are drafted: corruption, lack of money, frustration, disinterest, racism, intimidation of witnesses, and on down the line. Some factors that keep cases from being prosecuted are societal problems whose solutions are elusive, to say the least. Going back to domestic violence for a minute, after handling a couple dozen of those cases, I've actually mustered up some compassion for the cops who get frustrated and burnt out and don't know what the hell to do anymore. A cop friend told me that domestic cases were the cases most likely to get a cop shot, and I have a feeling they are the cases that are most likely to cause burn out, too -- when she (or the neighbors) call the police every week, but then the next week she says, oh, no, I was just mad, he didn't really hit me, even if the cops understand the basics of learned helplessness, etc. (which they very likely do not).

When a spousal abuse case crosses my desk, I know I will hear from the victim. It's a given. She will call and tell me that she lied and made the whole thing up and can't she just sign something, because she can't stand the fact that he's in prison.

I've come to the conclusion that if there is going to be a solution to the domestic violence problem in this country, it's going to have to come from outside the criminal justice system, because we're just flailing here. The men get out and find a new woman or go back to the old one, the woman moves on to another abusive relationship, and nothing changes. The women (like you, Lynda) who get out, get out for reasons other than the son of a bitch going to jail.

And it may be true -- in fact, it probably is true -- that the criminal justice system can't solve the problems of inner city violence and hate crimes, either. At least, it can't do it by itself. But since we've cut the funding for virtually every program that doesn't involve locking people up for a long time, the criminal justice system continues to flail away at these issues on its own, so don't look for anything to get better.

An aside about sex crimes and what you said about the assaults being defined differently depending on the specific act -- in California, that's so they can stack multiple crimes up for a single series of assaults, i.e., an attack that includes a rape, and an oral cop, and sodomy, could have the sentences stacked up for all three. So it's a matter of treating sex assaults more seriously than other assaults -- if I punch you and kick you and stomp on your fingers, I'm going to be guilty of one assault with GBI. Sexual assaults are an exception to that general rule.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

A further aside: my own personal feeling is that sex crimes are defined so specifically by act because some legislator got his rocks off by writing intricate definitions of "digital penetration" and "oral copulation." We aren't so specific when we define a fist hitting a face, but man, do they get yucky when they draft those sex laws.

I shouldn't joke about it, but really -- they all read like they were written by a dirty old lawyer man.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Damn, I forgot something else.

Regarding gang violence: I don't know if this is exactly the same thing (and I think the motivations for the law are different than what you describe), but California now imposes lengthy sentence enhancements for crimes committed at the direction of, in association with, or to benefit a criminal street gang. And yes, as you might imagine, defining those terms is a lot tougher than defining what constitutes a hate crime.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

heh... yea, I can imagine. I agree with you about all the reasons why it isn't happening.... and summed up (lack of money, corruption, apathy, etc) it means 'society has written them off'. How depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. Maybe the heightened awareness brought about due to hate crime legislation will spread. (cynical pollyanna to the end...)

Oh... and I *strongly* agree with you that in my experience - and I've known more women who have 'gotten out' than makes me comfortable - that the best chances for success come from those who don't waste time trying to use the legal system, and just pack up and get the hell out of dodge - forgo packing if it will decrease your odds of getting out.

But that's not what 'common wisdom' keeps saying "Why didn't she call the cops?" "We have services available, why doesn't she use them?" It doesn't work, because the legal system can't address someone determined to make someone suffer, and determined to never, EVER regard anything as their own fault - if the police are brought in, it's her fault, (or women in general) and he'll find a way to make her pay.

Oddly... I suspect that the sort of person who engages in hate crime activity has the same mindset.

Y'know... the 'someone is going to jail' law would have been great if I could have got him out of the way for a couple days while I left. But at any point prior to my getting there, I about guarantee you it'd have gotten me killed, because I couldn't have done it on my own, and everyone seems to think that if the law is acting, the community doesn't have to. "Why doesn't she just get out" is a very unhelpful response. The answer is 'because she can't." Analyze why, later... it's more useful to respond within that limit during the crisis that to try to talk her into a different mindset when she's in the middle of it. And as soon as you say it, you are a part of the same group of 'well meaning people but clueless to the reality of this' as the police are... the woman realizes that you only speak to life if it were normal, not somene as disenfranchised as she is. And guess how many times she's been told 'no one will help you'? It firms up the reality he's been forcing on her.

(I'm not meaning you, Beth - 'you' societally)

Just rambling now, with no idea where I'm talking abused women and where I'm talking hate crime anymore.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

The "knowledge" transmitted by the oral epic tradition involved such "facts" as Odyssues' descent to Hades, the transformation of his crewmen into pigs and wild beasts, etc., the role of the gods in the fall of Troy, etc. Which is to say, Epic is fiction. And most often, it was a fiction propounded to justify (if not exactly to rationalize) the existing social order (martial values, absolute hierarchies). Is this what you are "doing" by making up fictions and passing them off for facts?

I was just explaining why I rely on memory, and not on something as comprehensive as combing through every book in my entire neighborhood library before making a post here.

You have the benefit of this forum as a record. Please show me where I made up fictions and passed them as facts, you know, since I'm the one who's doing that.

Oh, and Mike, I now understand better your important distinction-- people who disagree with you are not themselves evil, they are "conditioned" by the forces of evil. I regret my misunderstanding

The phrase The road to Hades is paved with good intentions means nothing to you? My understanding is that evil is just as much a consequence of unintended action, as well as intended action. (Thus, the translation of the word karma from Sanskrit is action.) That's why I've tried to be as consistant at asking for correction as anyone else here. If I unintentionally say something evil, all are welcome to point it out to me. In fact, some have, and I have apologized when they were right. Of course, you may be so good that you never have to apologize for anything, in which case, I'm not stuck here with you, but you are stuck here with me. Sucks to be you.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Here are some other numbers-- full disclosure, the authors citing these statistics are opposed to hate crime legislation on (mostly) pragmatic grounds.

Percentage of violent crime that is interracial:(20%).
Black on white: 15%
white on Black: 2%
Ninety-two percent of murdered African-Americans and two-thirds of white victims are killed by members of their respective races.
Robbery has the highest proportion of interracial actors (37%):
black on white: 31%
white on all other races combined: 2%.
-- from James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. Oxford UP, 1998

Of course, not all interracial crime is bias crime; but assuming anything even remotely close to an equal distribution of the tendency to hold racial bias, it appears that African-Americans will be more likely to be perpetrators of "hate crimes" than anyone else-- which makes hate crime legislation an unpromising way to address the present legacy of historical inequality.

A second thing that makes this legislation troubling: it seems in practice likely to reify some identity categories and render others invisible. The classic examples are Suni on Shiite muslim violence, and American on Carribean Black violence: can these be bias crimes? why not? Don't we respect the distinctions? How about gay on bisexual violence when bias is a motive? Just as we routinely find motive to be important when assessing the nature of the crime that as taken place, we also routinely reject legislation that has no hope of being coherently enforced. (Of course we also pass legislation that has no hope of being coherently enforced, but that's politics for you). Is there a compelling social interest to limit the number of identity categories to those the court will countenance, a distinction that will have something to do with historical oppression, and as much to do with widespread ignorance of same? (Unrelated note: there are plenty of things that have been found to be in the interest of social harmony without that conclusion leading to legislation making the converse illegal)

One can wholeheartedly approve of the statement that advocates of hate crime legislation wish to make (and I do) and at the same time a) find the difficulties of practical application and the incoherence of the categories "interracial" and for that matter "bias" to be troubling and b) find suspect the motives of the lawmakers who support hate crime legislation out of a desire to appear sympathetic to minority groups without having to address underlying social problems in consequential ways.



-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

One more time: hate crime legislation can and is used in the situations you describe. Hate crimes are not written so that straight white people can be prosecuted thereunder, but people of other races and orientations cannot be prosecuted if they commit violent offenses that are motivated by racial bias, etc.

As I've said, I'm not sure hate crime legislation is the answer, but this particular argument won't wash.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Beth: I understood your point. "Can be" I'll grant you. "Is" I'd want evidence of. My suggestion isn't that the law is written in such a way as to prohibit courts from making certain distinctions. The point is that the law is not and is not at all likely to be enforced in such a way as to recognize the distinctions that people want to claim for themselves.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I know that California's hate crime laws have been used to prosecute black people accused of bias crimes against white people. I don't know if convictions were obtained. I don't know of any cases where the laws were used to prosecute gay people for bias crimes against straight people, but I'd say that such crimes are very few and far between.

This part of your previous post makes no sense to me if you say that you understand that the laws can be used in cases in which the perpetrator is not a straight white male:

Is there a compelling social interest to limit the number of identity categories to those the court will countenance, a distinction that will have something to do with historical oppression, and as much to do with widespread ignorance of same?

In other words, I can't tell if what you're arguing is that the laws are bad because they don't include other types of interracial, etc., violence, or if you're saying that the laws are bad because judges and juries won't enforce them in the situations you describe, or if you changed arguments midstream. I'm also not sure why your speculation that hate crime laws are applied in a discriminatory manner (is that your argument?) is a compelling reason to abandon them, any more than the fact that murder, rape, and spousal abuse statutes are applied unevenly between socioeconomic groups is a good reason to just take those laws off the books.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I am arguing (or I meant to argue--I do see that the passage you cite wasn't all that clear)
1. That though the laws are neutral on their face, (i.e. written as if to discourage "bias in general") they are in reality being promoted not to combat bias in general but to combat bias against particular groups. This is not a theoretical problem but it does seem to be a verifiable reality.
2. It doesn't seem implausible to me that these laws will in practice be enforced in ways that hurt the very groups they are intended to protect (c.f. the statistics on interracial violent crime).
3. If in practice it does become much more likely that a bias case would be brought against a case of white on black violence than in a case of black on white violence, it is hard to see how to defend against the charge then they are being enforced unfairly.

New point:
4.The courts will be much more likely to find bias in cases where they have stereotypical accounts of the distinctions being proposed. E.g. white/black violence, whichever way it runs, more than Suni/Shiite violence, whichever way it runs. Practically speaking, certain distinctions would be promoted over others because they flatter preconceptions about what groups are in conflict. In this sense, the hate crime law provides a positive inducementnot just to sharpen distinctions (so that people can see the difference between groups) but to think about group identification in conflictual terms. In other words, I am suggesting that hate crime laws are as likely to encourage the balkanization of society as they are to combat bias. This is where the compelling social interest argument seems troublesome to me. So it is not just that the laws would be unevenly enforced, but it does not seem to me that they can be coherently enforced without encouraging the very problem they are meant to combat.

None of this is to say that I would not like to be persuaded otherwise. And in certain instances-- e.g. the difference between vandalism and vandalism with a racial epithet, the problems seem much less severe (and easier to pin on even our weak "fighting words" statues.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

I would be more comfortable if hate crime legislation were called -- 'hate with intent to injure' or something similar. (otherwise it does sound too much like penalizing bad thoughts)

The intent (but let's suppose failure) to bomb a community center in a mostly minority neighborhood does seem worse than a successful individual beating death of one minority person.

Although the damage in the latter case is definitely worse, the intent is worse in the first.

And I suppose a person (who is an underlying racist) might in certain circumstances be moved to a passionate state to carry out some violence, and yet not be prone to act out such violence throughout the rest of his life, though he may still be a racist for a lifetime.

And that person, to me, seems like an entirely different threat than a racist drawing up plans for violence, mayhem and murder on a continual basis. I would hope the law could actually distinguish between the two.

I just happened to catch a Montel Williams show the other day, where a brother and friend killed their sister's fiancee because he was another race. (in this case white). But to me, even though such a crime has serious racial overtones for motivation, it is also a crime that might be considered to occur only under such special circumstances. (well it seems like it might, I don't know the actual history of the two individuals involved, it's just that throwing a hate crime charge without examination of the individual circumstances could lead you to charge the leader of the KKK (who murders, let's suppose) and someone who goes over the edge once, with the same penalty.

If the hate crime approach is like a flat tax approach, then I am opposed to it, but if it can distinuish on a case by case basis with a particular custom penalty, I at least feel better about it.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Well, we don't punish intentions at all -- not without an action. We can increase the crime for a particular action if it was peformed with a specific intent, but if all you have is a thought, there isn't a crime. So it's not "hate with intent to injure;" it's more like "injury due to hate."

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Well, I don't have any "hard facts"-- or really any facts at all-- at my disposal, and I can't be bothered to find any, so I'm thinking I will make some up based on what I seem to remember I heard on TV. And I don't know anything about the law-- not how it is made, not the theory behind it, and not how it is enforced-- but I'm thinking that won't slow me down either. I do have plenty of "ideas" though, and even my most off-the-cuff and unconsidered opinion is better than your argument-- because I am better than you! (You, most likely, are EVIL. Or at least that will be my automatic assumption. And you suggest otherwise, I may apologize, but I am more likely to continue insulting you and accusing you of trying to control my thoughts, since disagreeing with me is itself evidence of EVIL thought-controlling ambition.) But on the slim chance you are not evil, that you are good (i.e. believe all the same things that I believe) my "ideas" about how "society" (and the unrelated and often false historical trivia that accompanies them) free of charge) may give you the strength and the will to FIGHT evil, strength and will only I can provide-- and for that you should feel very grateful.

Fergus,

I noticed that the stats you cite are consistent with my reasons for attempting to withdraw from this forum before you started posting. I just wanted to thank you for serving my fiction so well.

Praise Evil!

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Well, we don't punish intentions at all -- not without an action. We can increase the crime for a particular action if it was peformed with a specific intent, but if all you have is a thought, there isn't a crime. So it's not "hate with intent to injure;" it's more like "injury due to hate."

-- Beth (beth@xeney.com), March 25, 2000. ------------------------------------------

Obviously, you can't punish thought unspoken so there is nothing to worry about there.

I'm simply interested in keeping away from painting everyone with broad brush when you say hate crime. As in fact, punishment might not fit all circumstances equally, and it shouldn't.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

hmm, I'm troubled by the possible perceived differences between, hate speech/writing versus hate speech/writing of general threats and specific threats.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that once a crime is committed, these are all equal in the eyes of the law. (as far as the relationship between hate and crime)

Is that the way it works?

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Congress can distinguish between protected groups if there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Righting past wrongs has been considered a compelling state interest that justifies discrimination in this situation.

That's one heck of a slippery slope. It seems to me that if this is the way they managed to implement one unconstitutional program (affirmative action), it could certainly be used to implement other unconstitutional programs, particularly where race is involved. (Again, this is a side issue, since the hate crime laws, so far as I know, are drawn up to be constitutional, so no such justification is necessary.)

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

I find "hate speech" laws particularly troubling, and proposals to limit speech on the net or in other media always scare me.

A 'specific intent' view of a crime-- I can accept that.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000