A new TV ad by the NAACP accuses Bush of not caring about "hate crimes" because he did not pass an emotion driven piece of legislation after the dragging death of a black man in Texas. I am proud that he did not do so, even though I still will not vote for him.

The Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America reads as follows;"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws."

Hate crimes bills, minorities like them so screw the supposed supreme law of the land. It feels good, so to hell with the document that protects us ALL as a free people. Not to mention that "hate crime" smacks of thought policing, giving the State free leeway to decifer what the defendant was THINKING when the "hate crime" was committed. Don't ever say 'nigger' again, or wop, or Jew, or fag, or bitch, or..... it could come back to haunt you, despite that so-called First Amendment, you know, that "free speach" one.

Weaken one protection, weaken them all. And so it goes...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 25, 2000

Answers

On a related note, I hear the Howard Stern show this morning featured several people who claimed to have had sex with human corpses.

-- STFU (@ .), October 25, 2000.

Yep Unk,ya nailed it on all counts.Nobody wants to think of us ALL,it's been narrowed down to "us" and "them" with the politicians dividing us with "class warfare""gender warfare" "minority warfare" etc...The only winners in this little game is the politcians and the social leaches like Jesse Jackson,whose only concerned about free speech if it's his.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 25, 2000.

Why dont you two southern boys just say what you mean:

You hate niggers, and you dont want no stupid new laws to remind you how much you hate niggers-and spics, too while we are at it.

-- PretendingNotToBe (sick@off.rascists), October 25, 2000.

Nah, I don't hate blacks by any stretch. What I hate is cowards who refuse to use a name, one hit wonders who cannot address the points of a post, but can only lash out in ignorance, cause they is dumb! Dumb as rocks.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 25, 2000.

Sick off,

While your at it my friend why don't you pretend to have a backbone and a brain and we will chit-chat about it,but while wer'e at it,TOO of those brews ll' be just fine.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 25, 2000.

"even though I still will not vote for him"

LOL

It is becoming more and more apparent that you are one of those voters who enjoyed ranting on and on about how you were going to vote for the right candidate because it was the right thing to do, but now you are going to give in and vote for the wrong candidate. It is people like you who caused Bush to take the lead in the polls.

-- (nice@try.unk), October 26, 2000.

Actually, I remember Uncle saying that he will "waste" a vote on Harry Browne.

Uncle Deedah, a vote is never wasted.

-- Georgia Peach (peaches@and.cream), October 26, 2000.

Exactly my point. He said he would waste his vote on Browne, and now he spends all of his time promoting Bush, instead of Browne. He already has his mind made up, despite the previous rants of false bravado.

-- (nice.try@unk.helper), October 26, 2000.

Hmmmmmm--if we pray_>thy KINGDOM COME-THY WILL BE DONE!! --------------end of problems on earth!!!

****major change of gods needed********* my bibls -say,s satan is the god of this world system & he has subject,s---get it??-----out with the old in with the=TRUE!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 26, 2000.

It is people like you who caused Bush to take the lead in the polls.

Really? There are other people out there like me, who think that the Constitution should be obeyed? Other folks besides me think that the laws should apply equally to ALL people, regardless of color or creed? And you are telling me that folks who share that vision of America are not going to vote for Gore?

Thanks Georgia, but the troll is too D-U-M-B to understand plain english, I have made no secret that I consider Bush the lesser of two evils, while still planning to vote for the candidate that best reflects my views, Harry Browne.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

I disagree with Deedah. I strongly support hate crimes legislation. The reason is that I think hate crimes are worse than other crimes.

If I were to be murdered for the contents of my wallet, it would be awful for me, and any crime of that sort tears away at our society to some degree.

If I were to be murdered because I was black, or Jewish, or gay, or whatever, it would be equally awful for me. But it would tear away at our society a lot more.

We are all of us poor humans in the lifeboat of life. Most of us are decent people. We should do our damndest to get along with one another. Hate crimes help march us toward the abyss.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 26, 2000.

I agree with Deedah. Furthermore, the amount of time and resources spent on trying to pass hate-crimes legislation for crimes that are already severly punishable through laws already on the books is a waste of our tax money.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000.

Most crimes of violence find their genesis in hate, IMO.

If I steal a purse from Sally because I am homeless and hungry, I do so because I HATE the feeling of hunger in my body. Also, perhaps I HATE that Sally appears wealthier than I. She can spare a few bucks.

If I kill purple Pete because he's not green as am I and my kin, I do so because I HATE myself or him or both of us due to our outer differences.

If I beat my dog because it makes me feel superior, I do so also because I feel HATE inside. It's only a dog. Or mebbe the wife and kids pay more attention to the dog than they do me. I HATE that stinkin' dog.

Ya follow?

I am firmly against special legislation to cover so-called Hate Crimes. I desire FEWER, more effective laws. Same with the tax code. Hence Democrats and Republicans at all levels of government, both of which do their damndest to complicate the lives of the citizenry at every turn, will not receive this man's votes come November. Nor those of my deceased friends and relatives.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 26, 2000.

At what point will you begin thinking for yourself? At what point will you shut out the rhetoric? Hate crimes? Racial profiling?

In recent history people in this country have died in the name of integration and equality and now what? Segregation and inequality?

You are being led around by your emotions. Is the proper noun African American racial profiling? It identifies a race and says who you are? Does it not segregate you from everyone else who is not African American?

You are all being pitted against each other by those who stand to retain their power or gain more power. Open your eyes and look around. See who would not have power if we all suddenly got along. Then listen to what they say.

America wake up! Be free and think for yourself before it is to late. You are being used.

-- UR2Blame (UR2Blame@UPOWER.COM), October 26, 2000.

Wow. I find myself agreeing with both Unk and Peter. Who said there are no miracles ;-)

But I do have to take issue with one thing ... and this one bothered me even when I was a kid. Why do people refer to themselves as, e.g., African-American, Italian-American, etc. if they were born right here (meaning in the U.S.)? I've always referred to myself as an American of Italian descent (born in Brooklyn). I remember asking my Mom about this when I was like ten years old. Never made any sense to me.

That's what I think polarizes us; that and all these "organizations" that probably had the right intentions when they were formed, but (IMHO) have kind of outlived their usefulness and are growing more counter-productive by the minute.

Then again, we still have the hatred of such groups as the KKK and the "new" Black Panthers (and support for those and groups like them), so where does one draw the line?

One of my favorite ads that used to run on TV was the one where the announcer said, "There are two times in one's life when color doesn't matter". The picture showed two very young babies -- one black, one white, happily gurgling away. The next picture showed a cemetary. I thought that was probably the most powerful ad I'd ever seen.

(Sorry; I let my idealism creep in there. Can't help it.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 26, 2000.

I agree with Deedah. Furthermore, the amount of time and resources spent on trying to pass hate-crimes legislation for crimes that are already severly punishable through laws already on the books is a waste of our tax money.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000

Sorry bout the cut/paste all the time, but I dont know the 'ins & outs" like the rest of ya's.

At any rate, I agree w/Buddy and Dee and Cap. It is more simplistic looking at it from Buddys angle.

And Dee is correct the day is over when you could have true 'free speech'. I could go on and on, but I'll tread lightly. I've said for years "The day is coming", alas, so it goes.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 26, 2000.

Bingo1 LOL!

"Hence Democrats and Republicans at all levels of government, both of which do their damndest to complicate the lives of the citizenry at every turn, will not receive this man's votes come November. Nor those of my deceased friends and relatives. "

As for what Patricia said: I've always considered myself a Native American Mutt. My ancestry in America goes back to a German immigrant who came here in 1710. I have Irish and English ancestry too. But who knows what else? Someone once said that if your family has been here 5 generations, there is a high probability you have African-American ancestry. Who knows?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000.

OT: Where I lived in northeastern North Carolina during the mid-1990's there was a significant portion of the population, which I was exposed to, that were quite racist - white-skinned and black- skinned alike. It was ingrained in the society, for the most part.

As a yankee from NJ, folks would naturally pussyfoot around me. These folks were quite protective of their cultural heritage of segregation (excuse me while I spit) and didn't allow myself nor my wife into their social circles (not that I gave a hoot, but she did).

Anyway, to make a short story long, when I'd meet someone new who would show off their racism (or were looking to test mine), I'd mention I'm a native american. They'd look at me with a frown thinking I was claiming to be what I call an American Indian. Then I'd define the term as I see it: native means indigeonous, resident, citizen. Therefore, having been born in the United States of America, I am a native american.

This little piece of conversational silliness was guaranteed to put a smile on the face of every good old boy who heard it. How sad is that!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 26, 2000.

Bingle,

You are a member of one of the twelve tribes, afterall.

-- flora (***@__._), October 26, 2000.

I agree with consumer, who agrees with buddy, dee, and cap, who agree with patricia, who agrees with unk and peter, who agrees with uncle dooduh. NOT!

-- jumping on bandwagon (monkey see @ monkey. do), October 26, 2000.

I disagree with the monkey troll.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000.

Well since we all agree...

A couple of things bothered me about this ad. The women said that, "Her father died all over again." Please, it was a terrible act (and I know it) but playing the commercial does more to bring back the horrible pictures and see him die all over again than signing or not signing legislation. The other is that the NAACP is supposed to be non (NON) partisan. This attack on Bush wasn't actually non-partisan.

Non back to the monkey troll...

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 26, 2000.

Oops, I think I typed non one too many times.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 26, 2000.

All robberies and burglaries should henceforth be deemed as hate crimes.

These criminals must hate someone with money and possessions.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 26, 2000.

Hear, Hear, Capn,

Why all people, no matter the circumstances, cannot be treated equal has been a downfall for a million years.

Any crime against a person, should be considered a hate crime...

chasin' the cat...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.

Can anyone tell me exactly what the difference would be if, instead of creating a new category of "hate crimes", lawmakers simply passed a slightly different law stating that, once a conviction had been obtained for a particular crime, that the presence of racist or other similarly "hateful" motivations must be considered and treated as aggravating factors during sentancing?

Would anyone strongly object to such a law in the form I set forth here? Would it somehow erode anyone's rights?

And if this slightly different law had the exact same end result as the more popular form of hate crime laws, why make such a big deal over the issue?

In order to be convicted of a "hate crime" you have to be convicted of a crime. You are already convicted as a violent criminal. At that point, your equal protection rights consist of serving your sentence.

Unc, if you truly believe that racist motivation is not an aggravating factor in a crime such as murder, and it should not receive any consideration during sentencing, then don't beat around the bush -- come right out and say so.

That's the real issue. Equal protection is a smoke screen.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

To me it depends on what type of legislation is actually meant by BHate Crimes.B I donBt have a problem with having the Feds or someone else stepping in if the local police donBt do their job. But as a general catchall where a crime is worse because of different skin colors or ethic groups I canBt agree. One question is it a hate crime when a white beats a black but not the other way around. Jesse Jackson and others feel that discrimination can only run one way.

And I totally agree with Patricia. In England people donBt call themselves African-English or African-British, just British. A Scotsman doesnBt call themselves a Scot-English. Just a Scot. ItBs time we did the same.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Yes, and that 1st Amendment is a smokescreen for people who say terrible things, or worship a God that I don't like. And the Third Amendment, that is just a smokescreen for people who are to cheap to quarter soldiers during peacetime. The rat bastards. And that 4th one, that is just a smokescreen for guilty people who are hiding something, same thing with the 5th, self incrimination, what twaddle! Cruel and unusual punnishment, what hooey! The whole Constitution is a smokescreen really if you think about it, just a bunch of made up laws meant to treat everyone the same under the law and limit the power of government. Total malarky.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

>> Yes, and that 1st Amendment is a smokescreen for people who say terrible things, or worship a God that I don't like. <<

What is being punished is not the speech, but the crime. Murder is not a form of protected political speech. A hate crime is not a form of protected political speech. Once a crime has been committed, it is considered legitimate to examine the cirumstances of the crime, both to find mitigating factors and aggravating factors.

Imagine I am an extreme environmentalist (some folks here already believe this to be true, BTW.) One fine day I pull out a gun and shoot a local polluter while screaming environmental slogans. I am convicted of this crime. My question to you, Unc, is whether or not my motivations for this crime should play any role in my sentencing, either as a mitigating or an aggravating factor?

The vast majority of US citizens seem to believe that the circumstances and motivation for a crime should have some role in deciding the subsequent sentence.

For example, a serial killer is not simply treated as a person who, by coincidence, has committed X number of individual crimes having no bearing on one another. Rather, most people believe that the quality of serial murder is sufficiently different from other kinds of murder to alter the quality of the sentence involved.

You seem to believe that all that is needed to establish a "hate crime" is that a crime was committed and it can be proved that at some time in the past the perp said something bad about some class of people the victim belonged to. Viola! Instant hate crime!

Instead, the intent of the law is to establish a "hateful" motivation (not speech). However, there are not many reliable ways to establish a person's motivation that exclude what the person says motivates them. If I say I love to hike, and I am later seen hiking, there is a greater presumption that I am doing it voluntarily. If I say I loath hiking, there is a greater presumption that I am hiking under duress.

If I say I loath a particular class of people and they are not fit to live on God's earth, and later I am seen to have committed the murder of a seemingly random member of that class, for which no ordinary motive appears to apply, then there is a greater presumption that my crime was motivated by my self-announced hatred. However, if I am punished for that murder, I am not being punished for my speech, but rather my speech has revealed my motivation - and society has decided that crimes of that nature are qualitatively different enough to merit a greater punishment.

Follow that?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

Yeah I follow you. What I am addressing is laws that have a harsher penalty because of the motiviation of hate. If you kill a guy in cold blood because you hate him is it worse than if you kill a guy in cold blood because you wanted his money? Do you deserve a stiffer sentence for beating a gay because you hate fags than you would if you beat a guy for looking at your wife? I don't think so, for reasons I expressed in the original post.

PS, motive for the crime is already discussed in court, it is used to establish whether the defendant committed the crime willfully and with forethought. I have no problem with discussing motive.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Deedah, "hate crime" legislation does not concern cases where one individual kills or hurts another because he hates that person's guts. It concerns cases where the "offending behavior" is simply membership in the wrong group.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 26, 2000.

"guilt by association","guilt by thought","guilt by intent","guilt by result"??? More later.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 26, 2000.

I must be missing out on the definition here. If someone shoots me because I have offended them terribly and they hate me personally, is this a "hate crime", or a crime of passion or what? Or is it more of a "hate crime" if my attacker thinks I belong to some identifiable group or class of people he wishes didn't exist (perhaps because "short people have no reason to live")?

It seems that hate crimes are those directed against stereotypes rather than individuals per se. In which case any extra punishment would be levied against a shortcoming of sanity as the notion is generally accepted.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2000.

Deedah, to elaborate on my point using the two examples that you gave:

If someone kills an individual because he hates him, is that morally worse than killing him for money? No, it's less reprehensible, in my view. Maybe both killers should fry, but certainly the one who just did it for money should.

Is it worse to beat up a gay because you hate gays, than to beat up someone for looking at your wife? Absolutely, it's much worse, my whole point right along.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 26, 2000.

>> I must be missing out on the definition here. If someone shoots me because I have offended them terribly and they hate me personally, is this a "hate crime", or a crime of passion or what? <<

Flint, as you probably could have determined with a bit of thought, the term "hate crime" is a popular shorthand, like "star wars" for the Strategic Missile Defense System. By deliberately conflating this shorthand, offhand term with the substance of the law, you are cheapening the debate. You too smart to do this by mistake.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

>> It seems that hate crimes are those directed against stereotypes rather than individuals per se. In which case any extra punishment would be levied against a shortcoming of sanity as the notion is generally accepted. <<

I do not accept that violent racism is evidence of insanity, as the notion is generally accepted. Bull Connor was not insane. The Ku Klux Klan was not a group of madmen and madwomen. Again, this kind of conflation of what is not socially acceptable with what is not sane is irresponsible on your part.

According to this notion that you claim is generally accepted, all of the top leadership of the Nazi Party were insane, as they clearly engaged in crimes directed at members of a group they hated. This canard has been exploded for a long time.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

Peter, I doubt that the guy who looked at your wife would agree with you. Seven whacks to the head with a baseball bat for being gay, vs seven whacks to the head with a baseball bat for wandering eyes. Equally brutal attacks yet you feel that the gay guy deserves special treatment under the law, why is that?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

>> If you kill a guy in cold blood because you hate him is it worse than if you kill a guy in cold blood because you wanted his money? <<

The same answer applies to this as I gave to Flint, above. "Hate crime" is a shorthand term. The substance of the law is different than the popular term implies. If you examine cases where this legislation has been applied, the perpetrator rarely, if ever, knew the victim. The hate was wholly impersonal.

>>Do you deserve a stiffer sentence for beating a gay because you hate fags than you would if you beat a guy for looking at your wife? <<

Both are wholly irrational crimes. I would certainly think that both of them include aggravating circumstances that should make for a stiffer sentence. In my view, the crime of beating a gay because you hate fags is worse, in that it was directed against far more people than merely the immediate victim.

>> PS, motive for the crime is already discussed in court, it is used to establish whether the defendant committed the crime willfully and with forethought. I have no problem with discussing motive. <<

My question was not merely about discussing motive in court, but applying motive as an aggravating factor during sentencing. Should motive play any role in sentencing?

For example, if some drunk was making lewd comments to my wife while I was away from our table in a restaurant, and when I found out I beat him up, should that be treated identically to my flying into a fit of rage because my team lost the game on tv, grabbing the first random patron of the restaurant that came to hand and beating him up?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

>> Equally brutal attacks yet you feel that the gay guy deserves special treatment under the law, why is that? <<

Ooops. I can see that the perpetrator is being called out for special punishment under the law. I fail to see how the victim is being called out for any kind of treatment, special or otherwise. The victim is just as victimized whether the perp gets five years or seven.

Do you think that the law says we must send flowers, if the victim is gay or black?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

Brian:

I sincerely don't know what the popular conception of a "hate crime" might be, at least well enough to distinguish it reliably from a crime where some sort of hate is involved. When someone requests that you clarify what you're talking about, and you accuse them of "cheapening the debate" rather than providing an answer, are we safe in assuming you don't HAVE an answer?

Also, I consider it not sane to attack a particular individual because of a generalized and unspecific hatred for a group to which that individual might belong. You demean me for questioning the sanity, then YOU turn around and call it "irrational". The distinction between sane and rational seems subtle to me. Would I be "cheapening the debate" by asking for the distinction between "sane" (which O'Connor was) and "rational" (which he was NOT)?

Or is the ordinary person expected to have this distinction so clear that they wouldn't dream of considering you inconsistent?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2000.

>> You demean me for questioning the sanity, then YOU turn around and call it "irrational". The distinction between sane and rational seems subtle to me. Would I be "cheapening the debate" by asking for the distinction between "sane" (which O'Connor was) and "rational" (which he was NOT)? <<

Apparently the distinction is not so subtle that you cannot apply it. You seem to have applied it perfectly well to Bull Connor without my assistance.

So, since you don't need my assistance I'd rather move on to questions of greater substance and relevance to the debate, such as the questions I have posed to Unc Deedah, in regard to the wisdom and permissability of considering motive when sentencing a criminal.

For starters, do you consider the criminal's motive a factor that should be considered during sentencing?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

Brian:

Motive has always been, in my opinion properly, taken into consideration both in determining guilt and in sentencing. The motivation of self-defense is recognized as often sufficient to be found not guilty. Similarly with accidents, provided the accused wasn't under the influence of drugs at the time of the event. We even recognize "temporary insanity" (although you might prefer to call it "temporary irrationality").

What I don't know is whether the goal of "hate crime" laws is to increase sentences *relative* to other motivations such as financial gain, personal vengeance, or outright I-am-Napoleon lunacy. Is it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2000.

>> I sincerely don't know what the popular conception of a "hate crime" might be, at least well enough to distinguish it reliably from a crime where some sort of hate is involved. <<

The type of crimes that have fallen under the rubric of "hate crimes" are crimes whose victims are chosen purely on the basis of their membership in a group. This factor is always present.

They are at least two sub-categories of this kind of crime. One sub-category is distinguished by a quality of "sending a clear message" to other members of the group that they too should be afraid of becoming a victim. Cross-burnings, vandalism accompanied by racist or anti-semitic graffiti, and church-burnings or vandalism are fair examples of this sub-category. Another recognizable sub-category is distinguished by the treatment of the victim as being distinctly sub-human or non-human. A fair example of this would be the murder where the black man was dragged behind a pickup truck.

However, both sub-categories share in common the method of identifying the victim based on their membership in a disfavored group and for no other discernable reason.

Perhaps you have not noticed that such crimes exist. That would be exceedingly strange, if it were true.

>> When someone requests that you clarify what you're talking about, and you accuse them of "cheapening the debate" rather than providing an answer, are we safe in assuming you don't HAVE an answer? <<

Already answered.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

>> What I don't know is whether the goal of "hate crime" laws is to increase sentences *relative* to other motivations such as financial gain, personal vengeance, or outright I-am-Napoleon lunacy. Is it? <<

A well-written example of the law would pursue this goal. Lord knows not all lawmakers know how to write a good, clear law that generates the intended consequences.

The pursuit of this goal is a reflection of a growing belief among ordinary citizens that these crimes exist, they are identifiable and they strike at society more broadly and deeply than similar crimes committed for less-invidious motives, because they spread more fear, more distrust and more irrational hatred more widely than similar crimes.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), October 26, 2000.

The victim is just as victimized whether the perp gets five years or seven.

My point exactly. The guy killed for his wallet is just as dead as the guy killed for being black. Yet if the guy who killed that black man is seen as a racist he deserves special consideration for tougher sentencing under these laws. How is giving the black man's right to life more importance than the wallet carrier's right to life equal protection under the law?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Brian:

You seem to be describing behaviors, not all of them necessarily criminal, that are xenophobic in nature. I suppose a cross burning is more brazenly intended to intimidate blacks than a fire-and-brimstone Baptist sermon is intended to intimidate athiests. But neither is illegal. Should they be? I would NOT want to be the poor lawyer charged with phrasing a *constitutional* law attempting to increase sentences for crimes based on xenophobia, and make it clear enough so that a jury could measure whether the xenophobic content was sufficient according to some litmus test.

As for making other behaviors illegal because they might be found intimidating, I can only wonder. Yes, we have very clear cases (the cross burnings), and some less-clear cases (picketing abortion clinics), and some tough calls (political rallies where drinks are served?). I grant that some people express their insecurities in dangerous ways. I've personally never been comfortable with psychiatrists determining the sanity of defendents (since they invariably find for whoever is paying them), and bringing in psychologists to disagree about degrees of xenophobic content of behaviors based on who is paying *them* doesn't strike me as a step in a useful direction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2000.

Unk:

I think we're talking about some kind of profiling here. If those who assault blacks because they are black are likely to assault another one for this reason every x units of time, while those who assault wallet holders only do so every 2x units, maybe the first deserves a greater sentence?

I really don't like profiling. If this is my first offense, I don't want to get hit with a stiffer penalty just because some of those who share my motivation have multiple offenses, or because the Brians of the world find their sensitivities more offended by my claimed motivation than by the motivation claimed by someone else who committed the same crime. Of course, I'd quickly learn to claim some other motivation.

Or, maybe Brian's goal is to persuade me and those like me NOT to express our opinions and preferences, even legally, by making such expression illegal if Brian finds it offensive. This sounds like the ultimate goal of the "hate crime" gang, and it's scary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2000.

The pursuit of this goal is a reflection of a growing belief among ordinary citizens that these crimes exist, they are identifiable and they strike at society more broadly and deeply than similar crimes committed for less-invidious motives, because they spread more fear, more distrust and more irrational hatred more widely than similar crimes.

Brian,

Your position is not an invalid one, but the point you make is one that begs for Constitutional action, not circumvention. Hence the reason that the Founders made it difficult but not impossible to change the Constitution. As it stands now we are supposed to recieve equal protection under the law. A pipe dream, I know.

Flint,

One of the reasons that I like the Libertarians is their stance on crimes that are a crime not because there is a victim, but because enough people have decided that the "crime" offends them. Prostitution is a fine example, both parties gain what they want from the transaction, but it is sinful and offensive to many people, and thus, criminal. If enough people found that picking your nose was offensive under this silly system of deciding what is criminal behavior you would go to jail for for nose mining. Oh, and since my Libertarian sensibilities are offended by those who classify consensual activities as crimes I wonder if I should be allowed to send them to jail because their stance offends me. And since my sending them to jail would undoubtedly offend their mothers, I would be next for incarceration. Then my mom would be offended, and their mothers would go to jail, and so on until we were all in prison.

The whole hate crimes issue smacks of Orwellian overtone, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

GEE lotsa opinions,but no mention of the ROOT cause!! lotsa chopping of branches--but the ROOTS LIVE-ON!! and so the lopping off of branches go,s on & on & on! but the tree grows new ones! *A TREE IS KNOWN BY IT,S FRUIT* 2 TREE,S IN THE GARDEN-GET IT?? and HE[the answer] said be ROOTED & GROUNDED IN LOVE!! HMMMMMM NEED NEW KINDA TREE,S HUH???

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 26, 2000.

Brian, I appreciate your rational contributions here.

My understanding is that part of the impetus for passing hate-crime legislation is to help local police departments. Apparently the enormous complexity of these crimes tend to severely drain fiscal resources of local investigative units. Local police organizations have expressed support for this kind of legislation because they really need help dealing with these unusual cases.

I tend to agree with Peter that crimes based solely on impersonal characteristics like race and gender deserve legislation targeted solely for that particular problem. In 1998 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (which G.W. Bush professed ignorance of in a recent debate). Part of that legislation included expansion of federal hate crimes laws to include crimes based on the victim's gender, sexual orientation or disability.

After passage of the Violence Against Women Act, violent crimes against women actually decreased. Treating violence against women as a serious crime with serious consequences, something that had never really been addressed in detail before by legislative bodies, actually worked to lesson crimes against women.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

>> As it stands now we are supposed to recieve equal protection under the law. <<

I fail to understand where you see the inequality of protection under the law. I still don't know if you are basing your contention on the belief that all similar crimes must be treated with exact equality of sentencing in order to mete out exactly equal justice.

If that is the basis of your argument, I would simply point out that a very long tradition of jurisprudence holds that no two crimes are exactly alike and so some degree of inequality of sentencing is necessary to achieve the best approximation of justice. That same tradition holds that motivation is germane to punishment. You may disagree with this, but about 1000 years of English law has reached a different conclusion.

If you are basing your contention on the idea that some groups are being given greater protection under the law, because criminals who perpetrate crimes against them may receive a greater sentence, then I fail to agree here, too.

Consider this, each black person, woman, homosexual or jew who might qualify for protection under a hate crime law is exposed to the chance of being robbed, beaten, murdered or assaulted for reasons other than membership in a group - just like you. In that you are equal. Their chances of being the victim of a "hate crime" is not equal to your chances, if you are not a member of these groups. You are let off that particular hook. You get off scot free. They don't.

So, if their vulnerability to crime includes a category of crime you are not vulnerable to, then how is it unequal to give them an additional protection from this additional vulnerability that not all groups share equally? I don't see it.

If you feel inclined to use the words kike, nigger, queer and so on, I can guarantee you that I will join the ACLU in protecting that free speech from legal attack. If you attack niggers, kikes and queers indiscriminately, based on their membership in that group, you should get a good stiff sentence. Not for the language, but for the action. There's a big difference.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 27, 2000.

>> I think we're talking about some kind of profiling here. <<

Flint, you don't seem to understand how profiling is practised in contrast to how these "hate crimes" laws work.

With profiling, the police use certain (often very poorly defined) characteristics to increase their scrutiny of individuals who fit the profile. Profiling is used for purposes of traffic stops, searches, detentions and other forms of increased scrutiny before there is any evidence that a crime has been committed.

So-called hate crime laws do nothing in terms of prior restraint, and are not intended to increase scrutiny of potential criminals before they commit a crime. They are only brought to bear after the crime has been committed. They are only used to ensure stricter punishment of the crime, based on evidence that the choice of victim was based solely on membership in a disfavored group.

>> If those who assault blacks because they are black are likely to assault another one for this reason every x units of time, while those who assault wallet holders only do so every 2x units, maybe the first deserves a greater sentence? <<

Spoken like a true Libbertarian.

>> I don't want to get hit with a stiffer penalty just because [...] the Brians of the world find their sensitivities more offended by my claimed motivation than by the motivation claimed by someone else who committed the same crime. Of course, I'd quickly learn to claim some other motivation. <<

This is rip-roaringly naive. Every criminal knows enough to disavow any responsibility for their crime, unless their is solid evidence against them that can't be denied away. If you think that the courts or juries are forced to rely solely on the criminal's testimony about their motivation in order to reach their conclusions, you are -- wrong.

As Thoreau once said, circumstantial evidence may not always be conclusive, but sometimes it is pretty damn suggestive, such as finding a trout in the milk.

If a criminal has made it their business to frequently advertise their hatred of a particular group, and has then undeniably performed a criminal act against a member of that group, for which their is no discernable motivation other than their being a member of that group, then that makes fairly suggestive case, don't you think?

>> Or, maybe Brian's goal is to persuade me and those like me NOT to express our opinions and preferences, even legally, by making such expression illegal if Brian finds it offensive. This sounds like the ultimate goal of the "hate crime" gang, and it's scary. <<

Piss off, Flint. I mean what I have said in this thread and I have nothing whatsoever resembling making any kind of expression illegal. Examining someone's expressions in an attempt to ascertain their motives for a crime is common business. If a robber tells a confidante that they are in need of money and have been thinking about knocking over a rich guy, do you think that this is not the business of a court who is considering whether he did in fact complete the criminal act, as he suggested he would. If he is prosecuted on this basis, is it punishing him for his speaking his mind? Balderdash! (Or some other colorful phrase intended to convey disbelief.)

You aren't up to your usual standards, Flint. Show me a quote where I said something you think is scary.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 27, 2000.

"If a robber tells a confidante that they are in need of money and have been thinking about knocking over a rich guy, do you think that this is not the business of a court who is considering whether he did in fact complete the criminal act, as he suggested he would."

Under the broad umbrella of the term "hate crime" as a prosecuter,If this person has a track record of robbery I would go after this person for a hate crime,as he hates wealthy people enough to assault them and take their money by force.

It seems to me that any crime against another person is in fact a "hate crime against humanity" as we are all part of a larger whole,wheather it's the humanity of my city or my country.An act of crime against my fellow Nashvillian's or my fellow American's is an act of crime against me or more plainly,society.Isn't a crime not only an act against an individual but an act against the society that created the law for it's inhabitant's?

If I choose to,I can hate all I want to,I can hate everybody without prejuduice,hate everyone on the planet.This is not a crime it's an opinion.If I bash someone in the head with a hammer,THAT'S a crime.If I tell the court I did it because I hate everyone on the planet am I to be punished for a hate crime.

All this without even getting into the fact that the federal government has no business whatsoever getting into a murder case(in most cases) that happened within a state or local jurisdiction.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 27, 2000.

Coming back to this thread after a considerable absence:

1. I don't really feel that I have to intervene on Brian's behalf. He's doing just fine without me. Yet perhaps a bit of moral support against a flood of sophistry would be welcome at this point.

2. Deedah demands to know what difference it makes to a dead victim, or one with a broken head, whether the the attack was motivated by hatred toward a group, or some other motive such as greed.

The answer, of course, is that it makes no difference whatsoever to the victim. Dead is dead. A broken head is a broken head.

We as a society are putting hate crimes in a special category for us, for our future. I thought I said that.

2. Flint, are you preparing for a career change, as a defense lawyer? You find Brian's arguments scary? Sweet Jesus, after all the terrible things that have happened in our lifetimes.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 27, 2000.

If you attack niggers, kikes and queers indiscriminately, based on their membership in that group, you should get a good stiff sentence. Not for the language, but for the action. There's a big difference.

Yes there is a difference, you are right. If I whack some guy for money the action is the same as if I had whacked him because of his race, but the motivation, greed, is different than the motive of race. And because in the past some races did not get their equal protection under the law 'your' response is to give them special protection under the law. You can slice and dice it, but that is what these laws do.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

http://www.ne wsday.com/ap/text/national/ap283.htm

Skinhead Convicted of Murder

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- A 19-year-old man was convicted Thursday of second-degree murder, attempted murder and hate crimes for firing a single bullet through the home of a biracial couple, killing a 6-year- old girl and wounding her twin and half-sisters.

Jessy Joe Roten could be sentenced to life in prison for the April 1999 attack that prosecutors said was prompted by racial hatred and a falling out with fellow skinheads. Roten will be sentenced Nov. 30.

''This was his time in his silly, sick, twisted mind to go out in a blaze of glory,'' Assistant State Attorney Bill Loughery said in closing arguments. ''He was a powder keg just waiting to explode. All he needed was a spark.''

The jury was told Roten hated minorities and fired through the outside wall of the girl's bedroom as they slept in the St. Petersburg home of their father, Terry Mance. The bullet killed Ashley Mance and wounded her twin, Aleesha, and Jailene Jones, their half-sister.

The twins' parents are divorced. The father, who is black, was living with a white woman at the time of the shooting.

Defense attorney Buck Blankner said Roten did not mean to hurt the girls and that his assault rifle went off accidentally. He asked the jurors to return nothing more serious than a manslaughter verdict, claiming the prosecution did not prove Roten was motivated by racial hatred.

Jurors were shown pictures of Roten posing in front of a Nazi flag and of racists tattoos on his arms. When police went to Roten's home to arrest him, they found a signed note on his bedroom door saying ''Someone had too for race and nation.''

The biological parents of the dead girl and surviving children were in court when the jury returned its verdict and sat not far from members of Roten's family, who cried.

-- (skinheads@re.losers), October 27, 2000.

http://www.ne wsday.com/ap/text/national/ap105.htm

New Trial Denied for Aryan Nations

COEUR d'ALENE, Idaho (AP) -- A judge has denied a new trial for the Aryan Nations, clearing the way for the winners of a $6.3 million judgment to take control of the neo-Nazi group's rural compound.

First District Judge Charles Hosack also declined Thursday to reduce the size of the judgment and rejected the defendants' contention that their right to hate was protected by the constitution.

The defendants were liable for the actions caused by their hate, Hosack wrote.

Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler, the group and some of its members were found negligent by a jury Sept. 7. The lawsuit was brought by Victoria and Jason Keenan, a mother and son who were chased and shot at by Aryan Nations security guards near the group's compound in 1998.

Jurors ruled that Butler and his organization were negligent in selecting and overseeing the guards, who assaulted the Keenans after they had stopped to search for a dropped wallet near the compound's entrance.

The plaintiffs were represented by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has filed similar lawsuits as a method to fight hate and discrimination.

Butler, 82, has said he would peacefully turn over his 20-acre compound if his motion for a new trial failed. He is living about 15 miles away in a home purchased by a supporter. Any property listed in Butler's name would be subject to seizure by the Keenans.

Butler is vowing to continue pushing his white supremacist, anti- Semitic philosophy. On Saturday, Butler and his supporters will hold a parade on the main street of Coeur d'Alene.

The Keenans have not said what they will do with the compound, but Dees has suggested it could be used as an education center against hate.

AP-NY-10-27-00 0700EDT< 

-- (skinheads@re.losers), October 27, 2000.

You know, criminal law exists to prohibit certain actions B to safeguard individuals against violations of their rights. And for this purpose, there's no shortage of existing statutes. The killer of Matthew Shepard, for example -- the gay college student from Wyoming - - was charged with a state crime. Why shouldn't that be enough?

What really would a Bhate crimesB law add? Well, despite its name, it's not BhatredB as such that proposals like these target. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, most crimes are motivated by some kind of hatred, anyway. In any case, the real target of the "hate crime" law proponents is the criminalBs IDEAS. A hate crime law really says that certain criminals deserve special prosecution and additional punishment --namely the ones motivated by a government- designated set of intolerable ideas, like racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, anti-homosexuality, etc.

I mean, holy smokes -- to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of their ideas B regardless of how wretchedly despicable those ideas might be B just politicizes criminal law. For example, why should a racist be prosecuted for the special crime of "hating"/targeting blacks, while the Unabomber isn't subject to special prosecution for his hatred of scientists and business executives? The only answer is that the UnabomberBs ideas are considered more Bpolitically correctB than the racistBs. Riddle me that one, Batman.

Y'all, a Bhate crimesB law just expands the lawBs concern from criminal action to Bcriminal thought.B It institutes the premise that a major purpose of our legal system is not so much in defending the rights of the victim, but in punishing ideas that are socially unacceptable. Really -- this premise is just anathema to a free society!

In addition, if committing a crime based on bad ideas warrants greater punishment, then committing a crime based on Bpolitically correctB ideas should warrant lesser punishment. The judicial process would have to focus on the criminalBs ideology, rather than on the objective violation of his victimBs rights (life, liberty, etc. -- you know the drill).

And how and where will this mess end up? If somebody who's convicted of an actual criminal act can be sentenced to additional years in prison simply for their ideas B then, in logic, why canBt someone be punished ONLY for his ideas? So, even if he hasn't committed a single action against another person, why canBt he be tried just for being a Bpurveyor of hateB? By the way, you guessed it -- this possibility (probability?) is already foreshadowed by campus Bspeech codes,B which bar statements deemed BoffensiveB to our beloved protected groups.

These "hate crime" proposals are really just an attempt to import into AmericaBs legal system a class of crimes formerly reserved only to dictatorships: political crimes --you know -- crimes that reflect your IDEAS. Instead, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the protection of all rights, i.e., that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for the actual, concrete perpetration of some sort of force or fraud on a person B not for holding unacceptable or unpopular -- ok, ok, let's just tell it like it is -- "bad" ideas.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Hmmmm...what are those "B" and rectangle symbols, and how do we prevent them from showing up?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

So far as I can see, each of those who have expressed a disagreement with the concept of a "hate crimes" law have studiously avoided my questions. They all seem to pick out some phrase or other of mine that they can cavil at.

So, here are my questions again:

Is it legitimate to consider motive as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the severity of a convicted criminal's sentence?

Is it legitimate to examine what a convicted criminal has said in the past as a method of drawing conclusions about his or her motivations?

Is it legitimate to provide protection for a class of crimes that do not affect all people equally?

Does an irrational hatred of some class of people, that has demonstrably led to a violent crime against one or more random members of that class, merit consideration as an aggravating factor in such a crime, leading to a longer sentence?

Must all crimes of a similar category be sentenced equally to meet the Constitutional test of equal protection?

These are the real questions. Rational people could conceivably disagree on their answers. But avoiding answering them and ranting (yes, Flint may rant quietly, but he does rant sometimes) doesn't advance the debate.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 27, 2000.

>> In any case, the real target of the "hate crime" law proponents is the criminal's IDEAS. A hate crime law really says that certain criminals deserve special prosecution and additional punishment --namely the ones motivated by a government- designated set of intolerable ideas, like racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, anti-homosexuality, etc. <<

No, eve. I respectfully disagree. You are wrong. Those ideas are not intolerable. I can tolerate them. Society must tolerate them. What is being punished is crossing the boundary from having an idea to committing a crime whose motivation grew out of those ideas.

It is bad enough to have people stating that certain classes of people are inhuman insects who should be crushed and discarded. The very existance of these ideas is a threat to those against whom they are directed. But the existance of and verbal expression of those ideas must be tolerated. However, ideas are potent. They move people. These particular ideas are capable of moving someone to commit crimes. Nasty, random, hate-filled crimes. I think it is in the best interests of society to draw a very bright line between the verbal expression of these ideas and the active expression of them against their intended targets in the form of violent crimes.

This isn't thought crime. This is drawing the boundary between thought and action. These ideas incite crimes. We can't outlaw the ideas. But we can make the crimes very expensive.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 27, 2000.

Eve,

RE: those "B" and rectangle symbols,

I type many of my posts in MS Word. Lately, when I paste the posts into the forum's little white amswer box, all quotation marks translate as the B and the square box. This is stinko. Wasn't always the case.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 27, 2000.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning, Brian. It's not sinking in. Please pardon me as my head is full of stuff other than grey matter. I believe mucus is the term.

Ideas and words are vibrational in nature and do therefore play by the rule of cause & effect. Example: consumer posted about her cat getting out and being shot in the neck by some low-life (my words). Reading that post hurt me. It knocked me for a loop.

To extrapolate, prior to Halloween there are binges of maimings and killings of black cats. Or so my experience tells me. These are obviously "Hate Crimes" aimed at a specific segment of the cat population based upon furr color. Do I believe crimes against black cats on and around October 31st should be prosecuted under a different set of guidelines than those covering all felines? Uh, no.

Same goes for other subsets as far as I can tell. To me it is a matter of inherent value of the victim. Should a cop killer be prosecuted under different guidelines than one who kills a janitor? Not in my opinion. Utterly ridiculous.

Now IF there were a situation where the entire species was endangered, I would certainly take a look at how to best protect the remaining population.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 27, 2000.

Bingle,

Cop killers aren't just taking the life of an individual. Peace officers are sworn to serve & protect - that's their job. They are public servants. The action of a cop killer is against the society's authority figure, as well as the human being behind the badge. In my book, it's not as cut & dry as you make it out to be.

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

Brian, of course we must consider motive in a crime. Some things happen accidentally. (I remember one report of a grandfather killing his grandchild. He was clearing away the diry dishes and was holding a knife. The child didn't see it and ran right into it.)

I also believe that we should consider past actions and words to conclude motivation. Of course we shouldn't take this out of context and only consider the habits. Example, a flip remark shouldn't be construed as intent to do harm.

Is it legitimate to provide protection for a class of crimes that do not affect all people equally? Huh? A crime is a crime. Are you implying rapes? Well, that wouldn't apply since men can be raped too.

Hate crimes is a way of singling out crimes by saying one is worthy of more punishment than another. I don't buy it.

Sentencing must be fair under the eyes of the courts. If I commit some crime, I should be given the same punishment as someone else committing the same act, in the same manner. Example if I throw paint in someone's face because of revenge, then I should get the same punishment as someone throwing paint in a gay man's face. Same act, motivation doesn't justify a lighter or harsher sentence.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 27, 2000.

1. Little is as cut and dry as I my opinions make them out to be. That's my inadequacy as a communicator shining through.

2. Cops are sworn to serve and protect. In MY experience they are, by and large, self-serving (few I've known don't accept bribes and/or use strong-arm tactics to get what they want) and protective of each other first and foremost, the law be damned. Cops are one of society's groups MOST likely to act criminally on a day-to-day basis, IME.

No cop's life is worth more than yours or al's or mine. The badge is a license to perform positive service to the community or break laws, twist arms, make a nice "side living" and otherwise terrorize people. I respect the badge because I know my life is in the hands of any "peace" officer who stops my car. Period.

I have known a few good people who happen to wear a badge. Anyone think a cop killer won't receive "special" treatment outside any legislative mandate? Think again.

What the hell THIS post has to do with the thread as a whole, I have no idea. Sorry.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 27, 2000.

Thank you, Rich/Bingo. Yep -- I'd used Word; didn't this time, though.

Brian,

I haven't read all of your posts above yet, so my apologies if you find you have to repeat something for me.

"Is it legitimate to consider motive as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the severity of a convicted criminal's sentence?"

No. For example, I don't see why the Unabomber should get extra time for killing someone from the groups of "scientists" or "executives" even if these "groups" as a whole ARE more at risk than others from the environmental loonies out there. Perhaps you could explain this further.

"Is it legitimate to examine what a convicted criminal has said in the past as a method of drawing conclusions about his or her motivations?"

Absolutely, in order to establish whether or not a crime has been committed.

"Is it legitimate to provide protection for a class of crimes that do not affect all people equally?"

No. A dead victim is a dead victim. They're affected equally, regardless of the motives of the perpetrator. So are you saying, for example, that since the group of "cheating spouses" are more at risk from being killed than others, that the perpetrators in those instances should face a higher penalty versus, say, killing someone for money? And there's lots of hate in those cases, too, by the way.

"Does an irrational hatred of some class of people, that has demonstrably led to a violent crime against one or more random members of that class, merit consideration as an aggravating factor in such a crime, leading to a longer sentence?"

No. But, let me make sure I understand you here, Brian. As soon as someone opens fire at a chess tournament (because he hates chessplayers, say, having lost to one too many, or that a group beat him up as a child) chessplayers should receive protected group status, and crimes against chessplayers should be punished more severely?

"Must all crimes of a similar category be sentenced equally to meet the Constitutional test of equal protection?"

Would you elaborate on this one? As I recall, the 14th amendment says that all PERSONS shall receive equal protection of the laws, and serves, for example, to prevent states from prosecuting individuals without giving them all the same (ideally) due process. Hate crime laws would entail the recognition of punishment based on GROUP membership. Where and how does the equal protection clause even hint at recognition of any type of group status as critical to the individual rights (life, liberty, property) listed in that amendment?

In any case, could you give me an example of what you're referring to? Obviously, I'm a little confused here.

In your next post you said,

"It is bad enough to have people stating that certain classes of people are inhuman insects who should be crushed and discarded. The very existance of these ideas is a threat to those against whom they are directed."

Well, your comments would bring practically everyone in the world into a possible protected group for purposes of hate crime legislation, including all religious people, scientists, business executives, and the rich (just for being rich -- remember Manson?) as well as the poor.

So even if you could successfully argue your point in theory, it'd be a little difficult to pull off in practice -- eh? :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Bingster,

"In MY experience they are, by and large, self-serving..."

In my experience & my state even our state lifeguards have to be badged law enforcement officers now. Same goes for fish & game, park rangers, highway patrol, & many other departments. Like it or not, society has changed that much. There are folks who went into their professions to save lives, help critters, lead nature walks & protect habitats, & this is what we as a people have turned them into. My perspective is different from yours.

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

Ok Brian,

Is it legitimate to consider motive as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the severity of a convicted criminal's sentence?

Motive should be considered. It should be considered to determine if the defendant committed the crime willfully, accidentally, or during the heat of passion.

Is it legitimate to examine what a convicted criminal has said in the past as a method of drawing conclusions about his or her motivations?

Sure, they do that in court every day.

Is it legitimate to provide protection for a class of crimes that do not affect all people equally?

Do not affect all people equally? Bogus argument. As you have said yourself, a dead guy is a dead guy. How can one guy be more dead than another guy?

Does an irrational hatred of some class of people, that has demonstrably led to a violent crime against one or more random members of that class, merit consideration as an aggravating factor in such a crime, leading to a longer sentence?

No, that was the entire point of my post to begin with.

Must all crimes of a similar category be sentenced equally to meet the Constitutional test of equal protection?

It would be an excellent start.

Now, my question to you; If discrimination based on race, creed, gender, etc is a bad thing, why is it a good thing to enact laws that discriminate based on race, creed, gender, etc?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Brian:

I agree that xenophobic hatred is a motivation for some behaviors. Some people are quite capable of working themselves into a state of mind where essentially any treatment of "the enemy" is justified (in their minds) on the grounds of that hatred alone. I agree that to the extent that this kind of fear and hatred is contagious and becomes quasi-institutionalized (I've seen mention of the KKK, the Black Panthers, the anti-abortion killers), these behaviors are antisocial in a directed and nonrandom way. OK? I don't think anyone is doubting that these crimes exist or that they are evil.

Now, what the "hate crimes" legislation is intended to do, as I understand it, is (1) Specify defineable, measureable hate motivation clearly enough so that those who fit these specifications can be handed stiffer sentences; and (2) Specify as crimes specific hate- inspired expressions currently protected. These might include cross burnings, web sites listing the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions, or certain types of "mental assault" intimidation without any further overt action.

I can see that the *goal* is to use the stick, as opposed to the carrot, to try to reduce hatred. The message being sent is "If you act on your hatred, you'll do more time. So stop hating." I think that hatred *is* currently considered when handing down sentences, and trying to institutionalize or codify this process into law is asking for trouble in a practical sense. Lawyers, doing their job trying to defend their clients, would define this one to the point where higher courts would have no choice but to find these laws unconstitutionally vague. I find it beyond my abilities to phrase such a goal in a way that would *not* apply to cases it's not *intended* to apply to, while not being so specific as to apply to nearly nothing.

Beyond this we have logistical issues. We already have far more of our citizens in jail than any other country. We can't build jails fast enough. And here you are suggesting that a certain ill-defined (but very bad) class of people should spend more time in these jails. As Molly Ivins said when pointing out that crime rates are *unaffected* by either incarceration rates or durations, This Is Not Working.

Now, I'd say that some crimes are more "rational" than others. Stealing when you're broke and starving is fairly rational, for example. Yet even "rational" crimes seem unaffected by conviction or sentencing practices. Hate crimes seem about as irrational as you can get, in my opinion being over the border into the realm of outright insanity. If you are suggesting that hate crime legislation might discourage hate crimes, I can only shake my head. That's less effective than telling drug addicts to "just say no".

So given the legal problem of defining the motivation properly, and the physical problem of punishing these people, and the behavioral problem of no observed correlation between behavior and legal retribution for that behavior, what are we left with? As far as I can tell, this is Yet Another Example of "feelgood" legislation, letting do-gooders think they "did something about the problem" while all that was actually accomplished was to make the status quo a bit more expensive and perhaps provide a frighteningly arbitrary weapon to those in power.

I consider this to be a case of futility, trying to correct after the fact for how our educational system failed us before the fact. I just don't like finding new ways to use the legal system to try to force people NOT to act on what they were taught as children. Hate crime legislation isn't even a very good way to treat the symptoms.

I've learned to be very skeptical of the "let's pass a law" kneejerk Liberal response to all social problems real or imagined. *Especially* when the proposed illegal behavior is so hazy that the best definition is "I know it when I see it", and those who try to point out that any such laws must be applied to actual fact situations to which their applicability must be clear are told to piss off, that their concerns are "not up to expected standards". Uh huh. What we have here are strong indications of a theological argument.

I'll try to answer Brians questions as sensibly as the questions allow:

[So, here are my questions again:

Is it legitimate to consider motive as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the severity of a convicted criminal's sentence?]

Only to the degree that determining motivation makes sense. We can usually determine whether the behavior was intentional or accidental. If intentional, we can sometimes determine if it was spontaneous or planned in advance (cold blooded) or done in self-defense. But even these broad categories strain against the limits of our mind-reading abilities. Going further is an exercise in self-deception. I've already pointed out that professional psychiatrists always find what they are paid to find about people, which you wisely ignored, since otherwise you'd have to admit that we can find 'hatred' whenever we choose to, and as much of it as we want, depending on who has the money or who selected the jury.

[Is it legitimate to examine what a convicted criminal has said in the past as a method of drawing conclusions about his or her motivations?]

Only in evidence as to *whether* the accused committed the crime. In a case like O.J., even a fairly extensive history of such past statements couldn't even determine he did it to the jury's satisfaction.

Also, as you have said earlier, criminals tend to lie. NOW you claim that their prior declarations were NOT lies. Choosing which statements are lies and which are truth, made by the same person, so as to selectively increase sentences is self-serving. This is simply another post-facto method of getting your own way so you can feel better.

[Is it legitimate to provide protection for a class of crimes that do not affect all people equally?]

No. This quesiton implies that because members of a certain class are more likely to be the victims of a given crime, *therefore* the punishment for each *instance* of the crime should be increased. In other words, a crime becomes "worse" in some sense if the set of victims of that crime is nonrandom in some measurable way. This is simply silly. Also, the underlying assumption that heavier sentences constitutes any kind of "protection" is false by observation.

[Does an irrational hatred of some class of people, that has demonstrably led to a violent crime against one or more random members of that class, merit consideration as an aggravating factor in such a crime, leading to a longer sentence?]

No it does not. The crime was intentional and planned, and in no way self defense. That's as bad as it can get. Whether the underlying motivation (even assuming we can determine it to *everyone's* satisfaction) is hatred, or crime-for-hire, or the result of a personal grudge, etc., is not relevant beyond that initial determination. The only relevant *legal* question concerns past record -- how many times has this person already committed crimes?

[Must all crimes of a similar category be sentenced equally to meet the Constitutional test of equal protection?]

Essentially, yes, in the sense that sentences should not be arbitrary. We are all depressingly familiar with the standard practice of throwing the book at the poor for doing what we look the other way when the rich do it. Our longterm object all sublime has always been to be a nation of LAW, whereby the sentence is fitted mostly to the crime and NOT to the criminal.

But this only begs your real question, which is "Should a 'hatred' component of a crime be weighted more heavily than it is now when passing sentence?" Since your answer is clearly affirmative, you bear the onus of describing both how that component should properly be identified and weighted so as to be evenly applied. Otherwise, the sentencing gap between more and less affluent hate-criminals will only grow wider.

Without question, the implication of all these questions is, "Shouldn't we be allowed to really STICK it to those we don't like? We really HATE the idea that the law should be impartial. We'd prefer laws permitting us to levy capricious sentences."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Brian,

A point of clarification:

In my answer to your first question I didn't consider the case of accidents or self-defense, as you'd already assumed the person in question had already been convicted of the crime. The victim of an accident or self-defense is not the victim of a crime. And I personally don't believe that a "crime of passion" should normally be treated less severely than premeditated crimes.

Also, I overlooked one of your questions:

"Is it legitimate to examine what a convicted criminal has said in the past as a method of drawing conclusions about his or her motivations?"

If the criminal has already been convicted of the crime -- why pursue this, other than for the silly purpose of discovering how much he "hated" his victim so you could increase the punishment?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Ya know Flint, when I read your responses to a question I very often find myself feeling quite thankful that I am not the one who has to debunk your logic.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Folks:

For another view, the APA view on hate crimes:

Hate Crimes

Their definition and statistics.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Eve,

You made an outstanding point about a crime of passion. Is not a crime of passion, in fact, a crime of temporary hate? And thus, as a 'hate' crime, is not this 'hate' crime deserving of stiffer punnishment than a cool calculated one?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Z:

Your APA article said

[There is overwhelming evidence that society can intervene to reduce or prevent many forms of violence...]

Which I found very encouraging until I got to the end of the long article without seeing so much as a single tentative suggestion as to what this evidence might be, or what intervention is recommended. Instead, sadly, it became clear the the author was *really* saying "There is an overwhelming DESIRE to intervene to reduce or prevent such violence, but we have not the first clue how to do this." It's always galling that some people equate the want with the actuality. In reality, none of this "overwhelming evidence" exists right now. All we really know is that lots of people hate, some of them act on it, and their targets know it and fear it, but are practical enough to recognize that the law enforcement power structure tends to sympathize more with the attackers than the victims, who after all are only niggers, queers, gooks, or other generic undesirables (but not stupid).

There does seem to be considerable evidence that the perpetrators of hate crimes, *regardless* of sentence, remain convinced that their behavior was proper and appropriate. They serve their time with the same sense of righteousness as, say, journalists who refuse to divulge their sources. Wrongheaded laws do not change the essential rightness of their actions in either case, in their minds.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Flint:

Your APA article said I need to correct you. Wasn't my article; it doesn't even reflect my opinion. I just thought that it would be a good idea to consider an outside source.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Z:

Can I plead figure of speech? I actually meant "The APA article to which you provided the link", and "your APA article" was shorthand for this. I didn't mean to imply you agreed or disagreed with it, and since you are anonymous we cannot tell if you wrote it. I admit I didn't find it very helpful.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Flint:

since you are anonymous we cannot tell if you wrote it

I wouldn't actually call myself anonymous. I have been posting on this or the previous board since BD [ie, before sacred spaces]. Until I left for Africa, this was a God [ie AOL]-given name and real email address. I think that my name identifies me as much as Flint identifies you. Z is banned from Ed's boards as much as Flint. To paraphrase Decker; "What is in a name, a rose by any other name smells as sweet". :^)

My favorite memory [I think that this is before you appeared]: I dropped a tag on Flash [HTML command not the poster]. Reading the thread made you sick.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Z:

Rather disingenuous. My name really is Flint. Had I written an article for APA, the author's name would literally be "Flint" and not "Z9M9Z" or anything like it. You may feel your history, to the extremely careful longtime observer, makes your alias less anonymous. But I personally could not possibly tell if you were an author of that article.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Flint:

Your point is well taken [Someone actually named you after a river :^)], but if you have followed things really well here, you would know that I am a molecular biologist [ie. I clone things]. By-the-by, I don't actually sign anything. For hard copy, my secretary has a stamp. Autosignature does it on electronic stuff. I may not remember my real name anymore. I posted this as an example of the information from professional societies that drives the law making process.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

One more thought Flint:

I accept you as Flint because you say that is your name. A few others have claimed to have met you and verify that you are Flint. But how do I verify who they are? The folks who went to Vegas know each other. Otherwise names here are just so much "dust in the wind." It really makes no difference since only ideas count [at least for me].

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Z:

While this is well off the topic of this thread, you raise some interesting points. For one thing, names here are arbitrary labels and not even required. It's not even very important what label someone wants to use in person, so long as the label is unique and constant. Those who steal others' labels or use multiple labels surely lose more than they can hope to gain if they want to use this forum for any kind of meaningful interaction. And false email addresses potentially deprive those who use them of interesting offline (and off topic) discussions, with no visible compensation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

First, I would like to thank Unc, Flint and Eve for answering my questions as openly and honestly as they could. For me, this has raised the level of the discussion considerably - away from posturing and toward dialogue.

In fact, there is now so much more substance to respond to that it may take quite a prolonged effort to address it all. So, forgive me if I cannot address each point by each of you in this post (or perhaps my next several). Think of it as the fortune of war. I would like to address it all, if it is in my power.

As a general preamble, the first thing that strikes me is that each of you has made much clearer the principles underpinning your own opinions and girding your conclusions. I appreciate that. I also notice that you all tend to promote your own principles as not only sufficient to draw your conclusions, but also as the controlling principles that apply. That is where we part company.

I learned in my early twenties that, in argument, there is strength in holding the moral high ground. Consequently, there is an advantage in casting your own position in stark terms of defending an absolute moral right. The simplest way to do this is to take a principle that is indisputably moral, that suits your position, and to elevate it to absolute supremacy. In that way, you may cast any questioning by your opponent as an attack on morality and therefore wrong.

If you look around you carefully at most of the arguments that are carried on, both here and in other realms, you will see that this is one of the most common tactics in any argument. I have been known to use it, too. Heck - it works! In many cases it even serves the truth.

But I have found that, in Real Life (tm) there are many other instances where moral principles overlap and conflict, where the truth cannot be reduced to a formula and where the best course of action is not only obscure, but necessarily obscure. No amount of moral absolutism provides an answer, because to move in the direction of one moral principle necessarily flys in the face of another, equally valid principle.

I think that we have such a case here.

Now that I have taken this position, I think it would be well to illustrate how what I have said applies to your own and to my arguments.

I asked:

>> "Is it legitimate to consider motive as a mitigating or aggravating factor in the severity of a convicted criminal's sentence?" <<

Eve answered:

>> No. For example, I don't see why the Unabomber should get extra time for killing someone from the groups of "scientists" or "executives" even if these "groups" as a whole ARE more at risk than others from the environmental loonies out there. Perhaps you could explain this further. <<

If all that matters about a crime of violence is the objective damage done to a tangible person or object - in other words, the immediate effect of the violence force upon its target - then clearly the Unabomber did precisely X amount of damage to X number of objects, some of which were merely inanimate and so a cost of replacement is the best objective measure of the damage, and some of whom were human beings, so that an assessment of the degree of physical damage would coincide with the larger categories of violent crime: murder in the first or second degree, negligant homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, and so on.

Viewed dispassionately, and with the maximum degree of objectivity, the Unabomber's crimes amount to a quantifiable and categorizable bill of damages. He killed this many, maimed this many, destroyed so much property, and so on. He then is held accountable for these objective despoilations.

The value in this approach is that it is dispassionate. By reckoning as objectively as possible and removing emotion from the evaluation, we remove some degree of human fallibility or arbitrariness - our well-known penchant to mix emotions with judgement and achieve a volatile result. One is as likely to reap vengeance or weak rationalization from this process as one is to reap justice tempered with mercy.

I recognize this failing in us humans. I acknowledge the value of removing this kind of arbitrary volatility from the process we call "justice". Point to Eve, Flint and Unc.

The matching difficulty here is that crimes are not cut from a cookie cutter, any more than hmans are. At times, justice is no better served by removing judgment and its attendant emotions, than it is by elevating judgement and emotion over objectivity.

Humans, for better or worse are emotional creatures. It is vain to pretend otherwise. Emotion plays a role in the enactment of any crime, on the effects of any crime and on the effective punishment of any crime. Since I believe that the need for justice is a human need, placed in human hands, that must conform to human standards and human reality, I just don't see how you can make justice more perfect by eliminating human emotions from it and effectively making it inhumanly objective.

Take for example, the extent to which we should consider motivation.

Unc said:

>> Motive ... should be considered to determine if the defendant committed the crime willfully, accidentally, or during the heat of passion. <<

Flint said:

>> we can sometimes determine if it was spontaneous or planned in advance (cold blooded) or done in self-defense. But even these broad categories strain against the limits of our mind-reading abilities. Going further is an exercise in self-deception. <<

In addition to her Unabomber answer, already quoted, Eve later mentioned self defense as a motive that should be considered.

These are very principled answers and I respect them. Not everyone will find them satisfactory in Real Life. Take for example, heinous violent crimes against children. These are ripe fodder for the emotions. It would be rare to find someone who is not especially moved by such a crime. When a crime against a child is motivated by a for sexual gratification and the child is murdered, not to conceal the initial crime, but merely to increase the sexual potency of the experience, then it may seem rather unjust to treat that crime as equivalent to the murder of a liquor store employee during a robbery.

Each crime may be spontaneous, rather than planned in advance. Each victim may be equally dead. The objective mathematics of one life and one death and a little property damage may be equal in each case. Let us further imagine that the criminal in the case of the child makes no bones about his motivation of killing out of sexual desire. It is on the record. He killed for the thrill only.

Yet, according to your clear principles of objectivity, sound as they are, the three of you appear to say that, objectively one child = one adult = one dead person spontaneously murdered. And that is exactly as far as you find justice able to operate in these two "similar" cases.

I know you are going to feel ambushed by this particular example. I chose it as representative of an extreme. An appeal to raw emotion. The overpowering need most of us will feel to punish the child molestor and murderer more heavily than the robber who killed the store clerk.

I chose an extreme example because, among other things, it puts a different spin on Flint's saying:

>> Without question, the implication of all these questions is, "Shouldn't we be allowed to really STICK it to those we don't like? <<

Yes. We would. The real question is whether this feeling has nothing> to do with justice. Will we feel better served by a justice system that puts each and every crime into some cut-and-dried category that is much like the sizes of off-the-rack clothes: XS, S, M, L, XL?

So what does this rather horrific example I imagined, of a child's murder, have to do with the crimes that are (somewhat arbitrarily) called "hate crimes"?

Well, first, it throws a very different light on the principles that Eve, Unc and Flint are arguing as the controlling and absolute principles that must be applied in order to achieve justice: objectivity and the removal of the possibility of arbitrary judgement.

Second, I see a commonality between the crimes, in that much of the root cause of the horror we feel when a child is molested and murdered is the uncertainty and insecurity it inspires about the safety of all, but especially our own children. Valuing the safety of our child is ingrained human nature. It is not purely objective. It connects to our worst fears straight theough a channel that penetrates to the center of our hearts. Killing children seems to strike deep at the heart of society. It makes us question the love of god and the solidity of the earth beneath our feet.

Hate crimes (so-called) strike fear into a selected portion of our neighbors. They are crimes of terror, just like the crimes of political terrorists. You may not feel that horror, because you are safe from it. Just like the "safer" crime against the liquor store clerk in my example. When you aren't a liquor store clerk, such a murder is merely a murder, not an implicit threat against you and your life.

Flint, Eve and Unc might be right. Maybe the path to true justice is to remove all human passion from sentencing and to eliminate consideration of almost all mitigating or aggravating factors aside from a very, very few, such as malice aforethought. I can see their position as having at least the merits of its strengths.

I just foresee that following their principles slavishly and programatically will also have the defects of their merits.

BTW, thanks Z for the link to the article. In spite of the one sentence Flint objected to, there is a lot of objective and useful information in the article, with enough references so a reasonable idea of the sources can be drawn.

Also, sorry for the deficiencies of this reply. I can see I have not directly answered even half the points that could have been addressed.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 28, 2000.

Brian:

In all honesty, I find myself a bit more outraged by the murder of the liquor store clerk than the murder of the child. In your example, the child's murder at least served an (admittedly insane) purpose -- the murder was a direct and involved part of the whole crime. In the case of the store clerk, the murder was kind of casual, incidental and unnecessary. To me, that's much more chilling. Insanity I can at least begin to grasp. Killing someone out of either indifference or net convenience, now, deserves more punishment in my mind. I'd send the first to the nuthouse and hang the second.

But this gets to the heart of your concern -- the two of us, given legal freedom to adjust sentencing to our "degree of outrage", would mete out extremely different sentences in your example cases. It becomes a matter of critical CHANCE which judge hears which case. This is, as Deedah keeps saying, the exact opposite of equality before the law. Instead, you are promoting INEQUALITY before a judge guided by unpredictable emotions and no meaningful legal restraints.

And this is why I commented on that single sentence from the article Z referenced. Even if capricious sentencing were a good idea in principle (and it's just awful), *in practice* it would have no discouraging effect on hate crimes as I understand them. Hate criminals regard their punishment the way a student regards being marked wrong for a correct answer. The problem lies with the *authority*, not with the perpetrator, who did right by his lights.

I think your own example has ambushed you -- you are so certain everyone shares your map of relative moral outrage. In the real world, you know better. Look at the abortion battle. BOTH sides consider proper morality to be with them 100%, and the other side to be utterly, incomprehensibly immoral. Now picture a law permitting a judge to find you either guilty of murder on the one hand, or to be complimented for responsible behavior on the other hand, depending on which judge you happen to pull. You WANT this situation? How much would it be worth to you to get the "right" judge? Do you see any likelihood of corruption here? Do you even think about these things?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

>> In all honesty, I find myself a bit more outraged by the murder of the liquor store clerk than the murder of the child. In your example, the child's murder at least served an (admittedly insane) purpose -- the murder was a direct and involved part of the whole crime. <<

And this makes it (minimally) more excusable and less outrageous? You really do value rationality above all other things!

Moreover, you have just demonstrated that you are personally willing to rank these crimes based on an examination of the criminal's motive. To you, one of these crimes is more outrageous than the other. Your somewhat idiosyncratic proof for this is that the murder of the liquor store clerk is less rationally motivated. So, to that extent at least, you have proved my point - that crimes vary in severity and an examination of the crimnal's motive is an essential part of determining the severity of a crime.

What I see here is that you have have a well-developed value system, in which you may easily rank the severity of these crimes. You have a developed system of relative values. You are able to apply your scale of values against the motives for the crime, not simply the objective outcome - death of the victim. And you are able to rank these crimes based on your value system. Most importantly, these two crimes rank differently on your scale. One is worse.

However, you are also applying another value. You believe allowing judges to apply their personal judgement (in the same way that you have applied your judgent to the crimes in my example) results in unpredictable outcomes. This unpredicatability outweighs the apparent truth that these two crimes do scale differently. For you, avoiding an unpredicatble process absolutely overrides the fact that one crime is not like another. For you, the more that human judgment appears to be removed from the process, the better, as this results in greater predictability.

If I might point out, there is actually no way to remove human judgement from the process. You may only relocate it. You may move it from the judge in the courtroom to a lawmaker in the legislature, whose judgment exercises prior restraint on the judge.

It is not surprising to me that you prefer to relocate judgement not simply from the judge to the lawmaker, but you envision a lawmaker who is subservient to the philosopher. This phiosopher has dispassionately judged a priori what principle gives the best results and the lawmaker merely ratifies the judgement of the philosopher. In this model, the philosopher-king plays the sole judge. Clearly, this does do the job of reducing or removing unpredictability from the process.

I think we can agree that ideally the punishment should fit the crime, to the greatest extent it can. I think we both recognize that judges and lawmakers are never likely to deliver the ideal. A good approximation is the most we can hope for. We simply disagree over the best means to achieve the best approximation of justice in each case.

On the one hand we have the evident truth that the severity of individual crimes do in fact weigh differently when thrown onto a scale of values. They do so using your scale as well as using mine. Therefore, it is equally apparent that handing out the same punishment for crimes of different weights necassarily fails the test of the punishment fitting the crime. That is my central point.

On the other hand we have the evident truth that scales in which the crimes may be weighed are not calibrated alike. Two different judges may each rigorously apply a well-thought system of values to the identical crime and each arrive at somewhat different weights, because their scale of values is somewhat different. If one crime might receive two different punishments, based on the judge, then this also necessarily fails to meet the test of the punishment fitting the crime. That is your central point.

In the real world court system, both of these considerations has been taken into account to produce a hybrid. To account for the need to reduce the power of whim, the law divides crimes into categories of severity, such as 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter, defines basic standards of evidence to be met for each and then scales the permissable punishment for each crime according to the severity of the category. Then, to account for the need to scale crimes within that category, judges are given discretion within limits during sentencing. And the general population is given some discretion over who becomes a judge, to help ensure that the values of the judge somewhat reflect the values of the community.

In the real world, such hybrid solutions leave no one happy, least of all the absolutist. It is neither fish nor fowl. It never produces perfect results. It is almost guaranteed to upset someone's idea of what is right. It charts a middle course.

>> Do you even think about these things? <<

There you go again. That is a nasty habit you have there, Flint. It isn't my business if you chew tobbacco, but you are responsible for where you spit.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 28, 2000.

Brian:

I think we are actually getting close to communicating here.

Yes, I believe the principle that justice and certainty are closely related, and that certainty is paramount (albeit impossible). Primarily important is the certainty of apprehension, which we sadly fall far short of. Having been apprehended, punishment should also be a matter of certainty. I believe that ideally, we should be able to READ the law, and then clearly know exactly whether our behavior violates it, and what punishment we face should we get caught. Then we can guesstimate the probability of being caught and do a cost- benefit analysis as to whether we should commit the crime. I readily agree we can never reach this goal, but I insist we should never lose sight of it.

But my essential point is that your goal is not approachable, if I understand you correctly. If society agrees that a hatred motivation shall increase sentencing, then this is what society agrees. Similarly society might agree that if someone is unusually likely to win the lottery next week, that person should be fined more heavily. These are social protocols. For me, the most critical thing they have in common is that they *cannot be sensibly applied*.

To return to your example, I don't think all reasonable people could agree on the "hate component" that went into either the child murder or the clerk murder. Or perhaps we're not looking to factor in a component, we're trying to decide if either crime was, or was not, a "hate crime". But you'd get more accuracy flipping a coin.

What if the liquor store clerk was black, and *one* of the two robbers was a KKK member. Would the determination of "hate crime" depend on forensic analysis of the bullet to see which robber fired it, with the sentence for BOTH of them hanging in the balance? Does this really make sense?

So my basic point isn't that "hate" has no business being considered at all, but rather that until mind reading is invented and quantified in some detail, we utterly lack the capability to make a reliable determine of "hate" in the first place. This renders "justice" capricious and arbitrary, which I think is the single worst thing that could happen -- the very epitome of injustice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

In the news....

Saturday October 28 5:24 AM ET Rock DJs Off Air For Confessions

WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) - A rock radio station here has taken its drive- time disc jockeys off the air because they refused to stop airing what they said were secretly taped confessions from a Catholic church.

And even though station WAAF-FM program director Dave Douglas said the confessions were faked, the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has expressed outrage, calling the action a possible hate crime.

``I cannot believe any individual would violate the sanctity, confidentiality and intimacy of the confessional,'' diocese spokesman John Walsh told the Boston Herald. ``Such people would be beneath contempt. I can't imagine any responsible media outlet would play such a thing.''

End Snip

Do you see why these laws are ill concieved? You ain't seen nothing yet, it will only get more convoluted and confused.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

Unk:

From the context of your snip, it's not clear what the Archdiocese is referring to as the possible hate crime -- was it the airing of "confessions", or the suspension without due process of the DJ's?

But does it really matter? Apparently Brian doesn't care, so long as somebody gets to define a hate crime as being whatever they say it is, no clearly defined reason required. I don't understand why Brian isn't over on EXboard, where expulsion isn't based on any published rules, and your offense is not identified nor the sentence justified. Sufficient that those in power hate you, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Unc: >> Do you see why these laws are ill concieved? You ain't seen nothing yet, it will only get more convoluted and confused. <<

Flint: >> Apparently Brian doesn't care, so long as somebody gets to define a hate crime as being whatever they say it is, no clearly defined reason required. <<

You guys accuse me of fuzzy thinking? Since when does a quote in a newspaper from a "spokesman" carry the weight of law? And that is all we have here.

Now, if you want to cite the text of the hate crime law (that may or may not even exist) in Massachusetts, or cite precedents from the Massachusetts court system where this "crime" has been successfully prosecuted, so you can demonstrate how it allows a hate crime to be 'whatever somebody says it is', then you will have a point. Until then, you are interpreting a flea bite in terms of assault with intent to kill.

You two act as if there are no juries who apply the law according to their collective wisdom, as if the legal system has no standards of evidence that a case must satisfy for succesful prosecution, as if the letter of the law and the legal precedents surrounding it hadn't been invented, as if there is nothing standing between the moment a proscutor decides to ask for an indictment and the process of sentencing.

Come back when this amounts to something other than random noise.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 29, 2000.

Brian:

It's getting hard to tell if your noises are random or not. However, what Unk found was a clear demonstration that the notion of "hate crime" is vague enough so as to be applied to whatever sufficiently offends the user of that phrase. Yes, we can be thankful that journalists don't pass laws. We can just as equally be concerned that legislators don't seem any smarter than journalists, and perhaps share selfish motivations.

I wonder what moral stance a left-wing journalist would take if he were forced to choose between censorship (very BAD) and hate crimes (also very BAD). I wonder how YOU would feel if your auto accident were changed to a "hate crime" because your victim was a conservative? Despite your protestations, I again have to ask if you even think about these things? You have a habit of sifting through history's discards and finding discredited notions that sounded good to well-meaning fools at one time or another.

The Law of Unintended Consequences was derived to describe the results generated by people like you. But the consequences aren't unintended because people didn't at least TRY to open your eyes. Talking to you about politics is like talking to Elbow Grease about Creationism. In each case, evidence is irrelevant and faith is all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

>> Talking to you about politics is like talking to Elbow Grease about Creationism. In each case, evidence is irrelevant and faith is all. <<

As far I can see, you have relied almost entirely on arguments derived from principle to make your case. The evidence you have produced to back up your conclusions is hard for me to find.

You have, however, made a very large number of assertions about what would, in your opinion, be the outcome of adopting these laws. To you these assertions appear to be the equivalent of facts and evidence. To me a fact refers to an identifiable object or event, bounded in time and space. You can point to when it happened, where, and who did it.

In my view, you are only weakening your argument by indulging in characterizations of me and my motives, overstating the quality of your case, and making those little scornful digs you seem to think are so effective. Such as:

>> You have a habit of sifting through history's discards and finding discredited notions that sounded good to well-meaning fools at one time or another. <<

If this is your idea of enlisting my sympathy for your position, you are deluded.

The chances are that only you, Unc and myself are even reading these. There is no need to play to an audience here. We're it. If you cannot be a bit more civil, I will tire of having sand thrown at me and wander off. For anyone still watching, I doubt I will incur much blame if I do.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 29, 2000.

Brian:

Let's go back up and look at some things here. You start out by saying that "the term "hate crime" is a popular shorthand", and that I am "cheapening the debate" by "deliberately conflating this shorthand, offhand term with the substance of the law."

Now we move down the discussion a bit, and you write "Since when does a quote in a newspaper from a "spokesman" carry the weight of law?" You suddenly claim I can't make a point unless I can "cite the text of the hate crime law" to your satisfaction. Do you know what "hoist by your own petard" means? It's hazy when it suits your fancy, but must be specific when haziness undermines your argument.

You first write "Piss off, Flint. You aren't up to your usual standards. Come back when this amounts to something other than random noise." But when the shoe is on the other foot, you write "you are only weakening your argument by...making those little scornful digs you seem to think are so effective. More of this McLaughlin consistency, I see. Can you explain why your gratuitous insults fail to weaken your arguments as well?

Now, we see you write "There is no need to play to an audience here. We're it. If you cannot be a bit more civil, I will tire of having sand thrown at me and wander off."

And in the *very next sentence*, you play directly to this nonexistent audience by saying "For anyone still watching, I doubt I will incur much blame if I do." Just so that audience will know the proper thing to think, right?

If you want a productive discussion, you must hold to a consistent position, please. You might wish to reread what you've written before you start contradicting yourself or applying a double standard.

--------

Anyway, you were on the right track a bit earlier, when you were discussing the practical difficulties of making the punishment fit the crime. This is indeed difficult, for exactly the reasons you gave -- that no two fact situations are ever identical, nor are the emotional reactions of any two people to the *same* fact situation ever identical. And beyond this, you'd be very hard pressed to come up with a criminal sentence anywhere that the defense felt was unjustly lenient or the prosecution felt was unjustly harsh, because people are necessarily self centered.

The essential goal embodied in "equal protection of the law" is that the punishment for "essentially similar" crimes be nearly identical, *recognizing* that "essentially similar" might necessarily cover a fairly broad range of fact situations, either in reality or in the minds of different potential judges or juries.

In the computer world, we refer to this as a granularity issue. If you can only measure distance to the nearest mile, then two places less than a mile apart are IN THE SAME PLACE as far as your measurements can tell. On the one hand, we don't want to tie a judge's hands and force him to apply what might be a nonsensical sentence in a peculiar case. On the other hand, we don't want to give the judge carte blanche to dismiss cases against his friends for doing what he puts his enemies to death for. There must be a *workable* tradeoff.

What the "hate crimes" legislation is doing is imposing a granularity of motivation well beyond our practical ability to measure. If we ever develop telepathy, then I will reconsider. I accept that if I commit a crime, I should pay for what I did. I do NOT accept that my payment should depend on what someone else just happens to think might have been going through my mind, based on God Only Knows what evidence or none. You may not choose to face up to it, but capricious punishment is a primary tool of a terrorist state.

Now, if you are just doing a very poor job of saying you would like to see the maximum sentence increased for specific crimes already on the books, then let's examine those specific crimes one by one and determine what *specific, predictable, defined* evidence warrents the greater sentence. I'm certainly open to the notion that some identifiable, definable group has been getting off too light. But I'll tolerate no witch hunts or fishing expeditions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Just for the record, this is one of the threads I check each day. I have no opinion on hate-crimes, and haven't been swayed by these arguments. I DO enjoy reading the issues of both sides, however.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

Flint:

You are forgetting one component of the formula. Now if these are state sent. laws; I can go with Brian. If they are Federal Laws, well; it means that a person found not guilty in state court can be retried with new charges in Federal Court. Now I have problems with that. And Gone.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 29, 2000.

Z:

That's just one more little practical problem. I know what Brian is trying to say, in general terms. He recommends that a bell be put on the cat, ignoring the practical impossibility of doing so effectively, or doing so without making a travesty of justice.

I think his position is perfectly consistent with being a "let's make everything mandatory that isn't prohibited" government meddler type. Since he gives these matters a lot of thought, I hope eventually he's able to recognize that sometimes you must accept an evil on the discouragingly practical grounds that all the alternatives are even *more* evil. I cheerfully grant that Brian has correctly identified a disease. I can only hope that someday he realizes his proposed cure is much worse, because it begs for abuse and cannot be applied reliably even with the best of intentions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Brian,

I am still awaiting an answer to my question posed to you.

If discrimination based on race, creed, gender, etc is a bad thing, why is it a good thing to enact laws that discriminate based on race, creed, gender, etc?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

I really find Libertarian philosophies, as found in this thread for example, laughingly simplistic.

Apparently some people would like to roll back the clock to the days when lynching of blacks was common and went unprosecuted, and beating of women at home was ignored and unpunishable by law. It is only recently that women have finally gained some legal support for stalking and harassment. Before they had to simply fend for themselves, the Libertarian's preferred "solution."

Never mind that the Violence Against Women Act actually reduced violence against women. Such "acts" are "unconstitutional" and single out people for "special treatment."

In the Libertarian's simplistic mind, we were all better off in 1880, when such federal crimes against racial violence did not exist, and all crimes were treated on an "equal basis."

Common Myths: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Myth: Every crime is a "hate crime."

Every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its consequences. But not all crime is based on hate. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. A hate crime affects not only the victim and their family but an entire community or category of people and their families.

Hate crimes are destructive and divisive. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the nation.

Myth: Hate crimes laws threaten or chill free speech and threaten the First Amendment.

Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts -- even violent thoughts. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group even if such statements amount to hate speech. The Act does not punish thought or speech or criticism of another person. It covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily injury.

Doubts about the constitutionality of hate crimes laws were squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in the early 1990Bs in two cases, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell. These cases clearly demonstrate that a hate crimes statute may consider bias motivation when that motivation is directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct. By requiring this connection to criminal activity, these statutes do not chill protected speech and do not violate the First Amendment. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court made clear that "the First Amendment ... does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent."

Nothing in this act would prohibit the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. People will always be free to say things like "Homosexuality is sinful"; "Homosexuality is an abomination"; or "Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." The act would only cover violent actions committed because of a personBs sexual orientation that result in death or bodily injury.

Myth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) gives certain people special protection and is therefore divisive and unfair. It puts more value on some peopleBs lives than others.

It is hate crimes that divide us and devalue certain people's lives, not the laws that address the problem. Hate crimes statutes don't discriminate. All victims of bias crime are protected by these statutes.

Perpetrators of violent crime who intentionally select victims because of who they are, single out and separate some Americans from others. They are terrorists who single out victims and commit violent acts as a means of sending a message to society and to others who belong to the same category. The federal government -- through decades of civil rights and criminal law -- has a history of addressing crime that singles out individuals for violence in this way.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing federal law regarding the authority of the federal government to investigate and prosecute crimes. This authority already exists for crimes committed because of the victim's race, color, religion and national origin. HCPA thus brings more uniformity and fairness to existing law.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is not a penalty-enhancement statute. Congress addressed the sentence enhancement issue by passing the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law already allows judges to impose harsher penalties for hate crimes, including hate crimes based on gender, disability and sexual orientation that occur in national parks and on other federal property.

Myth: There is no epidemic of hate crimes.

Every individual's life is valuable and sacred, and even one life lost is too many. There is ample evidence that hate crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our nation.

It is not only the frequency or number of hate crimes that distinguish these acts of violence from other types of crime. It is also the impact these crimes have on the victims, their families, their communities and, in some instances, the nation.

Evidence indicates that hate crimes are underreported; however, statistics show that since 1991 hate crimes have nearly doubled with 8,049 being reported in 1997, the FBI's most recent reporting period. Race-related hate crimes were by far the most common, representing nearly 60 percent of all cases. Hate crimes based on religion represented 17 percent of all cases. And hate crimes against gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans increased by 8 percent -- constituting about 14 percent of all hate crimes reported.

Anti-gay crimes are becoming increasingly more violent, according to a report released on April 6, 1999, by the National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs. The report documented 2,552 anti-gay incidents in only 16 cities/jurisdictions across the country in 1998, with an alarming increase in violence, brutality, and the use of weapons in these attacks.

Sadly, statistics only give a glimpse of the problem. It is widely recognized that hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often go unreported due to fear and stigmatization. Additionally, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act makes the reporting of hate crimes by state and local jurisdictions voluntary, resulting in no participation by many jurisdictions each year. For example, of the 100 most populous cities in the United States, 10 did not participate in the reporting of hate crime data at all for 1997.

In addition, regardless of the actual numbers of reported hate crimes, the impact on the victim, the affected communities and the nation are immeasurable.

Myth: Investigating and prosecuting crime is a state issue. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act federalizes crimes that are better left to the states to address. The recent well publicized hate crimes in Wyoming, Texas, and Alabama show that perpetrators of hate crimes usually get punished severely. We donBt need another federal law. The vast majority of these crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state level. The importance of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is to provide a backstop to state and local law enforcement by allowing a federal prosecution if -- and only if -- it is necessary to achieve an effective, just result, and to permit federal authorities to assist in investigations.

An expanded federal hate crimes act would, of course, continue to overlap with state jurisdiction in many cases. Violent crimes, whether motivated by discriminatory bias or not, are generally covered under state law. Such overlap is common. For example, there is overlapping federal jurisdiction in the case of many homicides, bank robberies, kidnappings, fraud, and other crimes. As is frequently the case when federal and state laws overlap, the number of crimes subject to federal law would greatly exceed the number of federal prosecutions. Even though the federal hate crimes statute might apply as well as the state's, there will be no need for a federal prosecution in the vast majority of cases. Since 1991, for example, the FBI has documented over 50,000 hate crimes. During that period, however, the Justice Department brought only 37 cases under 18 U.S.C. B'245.

Almost all rapes and sexual assaults, violent crimes against gay men and lesbians, and violent crimes against disabled persons, will continue to be prosecuted by state and local authorities

In addition, most hate crimes are not high-profile murder cases. Murder cases will always take high priority for law enforcement. Not every case has the same fact-patterns or amount of forensic evidence as the Byrd, Shepard and Gaither cases. In other instances, state and local law enforcement may need to call on the resources of the DOJ or FBI to help with the investigation and prosecution of the case.

Finally, passage of a federal law would result in increased public education and awareness, increased reporting of hate crimes, increased reporting under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act and a clearer demonstration of the federal governmentBs resolve to deal with violence based on prejudice. Passage of the act puts would-be perpetrators on notice that our society does not tolerate these kinds of criminal actions. And, if one of them hears this message, lives could be saved.

Myth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is unconstitutional.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is fully consistent with established constitutional law, including First Amendment precedent and the Lopez decision. The act itself and the existing federal criminal civil rights statute that the act amends, 18 U.S.C. B'245, only apply to acts of violence, not speech. The existing statute has been upheld under the Commerce Clause, section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment. Because the Hate Crimes Prevention Act requires a direct link to interstate commerce before the federal government can prosecute a hate crime based on sexual orientation, gender or disability, the Act is fully consistent with the Supreme CourtBs decision in United States v. Lopez. "Consitutionality - Supreme Court Constitutionality Law"

Myth: In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Morrison, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

HCPA has been carefully drafted to assure its constitutionality under current Supreme Court precedent. The recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Morrison invalidating the civil rights remedy provided by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), has caused some to express concerns regarding the constitutionality of HCPA's addition of "sexual orientation, gender and disability" to existing law. The HCPA has been carefully drafted to assure its constitutionality and is being re-examined in light of the court's decision. Based on our preliminary conversations with Department of Justice officials, congressional allies and constitutional scholars, we are confident that HCPA would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

The addition of real or perceived sexual orientation, gender and disability to the statute currently used by the federal government to prosecute hate crimes (18 U.S.C. B'245) is a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. A number of elements in HCPA affirm this congressional authority. The two most important of these elements are (1) the existing federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. B'245, has been upheld as a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. 1989), and (2) the Hate Crimes Prevention Act contains an explicit jurisdictional element requiring that each gender-, sexual orientation-, or disability-based violent act in question contain an interstate commerce connection.

Myth: Including sexual orientation in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives special protection to homosexuals based on sexual behavior. There is nothing "special" about wanting to live free of violence in our society. Evidence shows that lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans are frequent targets of hate crimes. It would be inappropriate and irresponsible to leave this community out of the solution.

It is well established that the term "sexual orientation" means homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. In the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, the term "sexual orientation" is defined as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." The Federal Bureau of Investigation also collects statistics on hate crimes perpetrated against individuals on the basis of bisexuality.

A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing federal law regarding the authority of the federal government to investigate and prosecute violent crimes. This authority already exists for crimes committed because of the victimBs race, color, religion and national origin. HCPA thus brings more uniformity and fairness to existing law.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

Right on, Celia! And people who are in love with their sophestries can just jump in the lake (and my phraseology reflects the fact that I'm currently having a polite attack).

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 29, 2000.

Golly Celia, I so happy that you are getting such a good chuckle from the idea that all men are created equal, and thus deserve equal protection under the law.

I got quite a hearty ho ho ho myself out of your first paragraph.

Apparently some people would like to roll back the clock to the days when lynching of blacks was common and went unprosecuted, and beating of women at home was ignored and unpunishable by law. It is only recently that women have finally gained some legal support for stalking and harassment. Before they had to simply fend for themselves, the Libertarian's preferred "solution."

Seems that you either cannot read what I am saying, or, you do not like what I am saying.

Is the lynching of a white man or a black man the more heinous crime?

Is the stalking of a male worse or less offensive than the stalking of a female?

Or, shockingly, should these people GET EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW? Like it says in that pesky Constitution? Should they get EQUAL protection, like EVERONE else?

But not all crime is based on hate. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is.

Like when a robber picks out the guy who looks rich?

but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the nation.

Like when they beat and terrorize a cab driver because he has money? Was McVey a hate criminal? Was Manson? The Boston Strangler?

Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts -- even violent thoughts. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group even if such statements amount to hate speech. The Act does not punish thought or speech or criticism of another person. It covers only violent actions that result in death or bodily injury.

Well DUH! Don't ALL penalties for violent crime cover crimes that result in death or bodily injury? Regardless of the motive? Equal justice before the law, like I said.

Perpetrators of violent crime who intentionally select victims because of who they are, single out and separate some Americans from others.

Separate out some Americans, oh my that sounds so sinister. Like, for instance singling out and separating that guy who is GETTING MONEY FROM AN ATM? How horrible for people who get money from ATM? When oh when will the anti-ATM hate legislation pass in congress?

Myth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) gives certain people special protection and is therefore divisive and unfair. It puts more value on some people's lives than others.

It is hate crimes that divide us and devalue certain people's lives, not the laws that address the problem. Hate crimes statutes don't discriminate. All victims of bias crime are protected by these statutes.

Please tell me Celia, what crime is NOT a crime of bias? Please tell me ONE! Just ONE SINGLE CRIME that is not a crime of bias, please?

Perpetrators of violent crime who intentionally select victims because of who they are, single out and separate some Americans from others. They are terrorists who single out victims and commit violent acts as a means of sending a message to society and to others who belong to the same category.

Don't own a convenience store! That is the "hate" crime message to you! If you live in the inner city DO NOT OWN A STORE! Hate criminals, the ones without money who hate those who have it, will get you!

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing federal law regarding the authority of the federal government to investigate and prosecute crimes.

WHY? Why not just seek to enforce what we already have? EQUAL protection under the law?

And then follows yards of crap saying the same thing over and over. These crimes are worse. These crimes are special. These crimes.....blah blah blah. The laws we have need to be applied equally, these extra laws only open more cans of worms.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

Hey Peter, when you and Celia and Brian are done swimming in the lake I'll hand you a towel.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

Unc,

White men have not in general been victims of either lynching or stalking. Victims have been overwhelmingly blacks and women, respectively. If a man was "stalked" today, he would find equal protection under the law for any prosecution that can arise from that particular crime. Again, only recently was "stalking" even considered a crime.

In Nazi Germany, it was acceptable to persecute Jews because of their religion. That is a hate crime. In America, it has been okay for years to persecute gays because they are gay. That is a hate crime.

An example of a crime without bias would be a break-in, wherein a person steals something from a house without ever seeing the owner of the house. He merely sees an open window.

A example of a crime with bias is when a person kills someone because of the color of their skin.

Is this sinking in yet?

The U.S. has had these laws on the books for years. The law acknowledges a category of crime that is based only on "who" a person is, not what a person owns, or what that person's relationship may be to the criminal.

For example, a man may kill his wife in a fit of jealousy. This is not a hate crime. He intimately knows his wife -- her name, her place of birth, her age, etc. He is angry because his wife has done something he thinks she shouldn't have.

That same man make walk down the street the next week and shoot a black man because he's black. He doesn't know the man, or the man's name. All he "knows" is that the man is black. He kills him not because of anything in particular that this man has done. He is angry merely because his skin is black.

Can you honestly say there is no distinction of bias between these two crimes?

I believe what I posted earlier fully answers all objections about the "constitutionality" of federal hate crimes law.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 29, 2000.

So the guy who goes into that open window does not have a bias that the people living in that house might have somthing he wants? Nonsense.

White men have not in general been victims of either lynching or stalking. Victims have been overwhelmingly blacks and women, respectively.

So you admit that these are laws that discriminate based on race, creed, and gender. I thought that you said earlier that discrimination based on these precepts lead to horrible crimes? And yet laws that discriminate along these lines are good? Why is that?

In Nazi Germany, it was acceptable to persecute Jews because of their religion. That is a hate crime. In America, it has been okay for years to persecute gays because they are gay. That is a hate crime.

No, that is discrimination. It may even lead to crime. YOU call it a "hate" crime.

For example, a man may kill his wife in a fit of jealousy. This is not a hate crime. He intimately knows his wife -- her name, her place of birth, her age, etc. He is angry because his wife has done something he thinks she shouldn't have.

Equal protection under the law deals with this situation. A crime of passion. Wait! He was angry! A HATE crime!

That same man make walk down the street the next week and shoot a black man because he's black. He doesn't know the man, or the man's name. All he "knows" is that the man is black. He kills him not because of anything in particular that this man has done. He is angry merely because his skin is black.

Murder. It is already on the books. Punnish him for murder.

I believe what I posted earlier fully answers all objections about the "constitutionality" of federal hate crimes law.

Yes, and the Dred Scott opinion answered fully all objections about the "constitutionality" of slavery, too, didn't it?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

For example, a man may kill his wife in a fit of jealousy. This is not a hate crime. He intimately knows his wife -- her name, her place of birth, her age, etc. He is angry because his wife has done something he thinks she shouldn't have.

That same man make walk down the street the next week and shoot a black man because he's black. He doesn't know the man, or the man's name. All he "knows" is that the man is black. He kills him not because of anything in particular that this man has done. He is angry merely because his skin is black.

Celia--

Both of these examples are legal murder. Aren't they? Depending on the state, they are punishable by death or life imprisonment. What do you want--the guilty WHITEMAN to wear a scarlet H to the electric chair?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 30, 2000.

Unc--

We posted at the same time. If either one of us had done this to Celia we would be arrested for posting-persecution, a HATE crime.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 30, 2000.

So the guy who goes into that open window does not have a bias that the people living in that house might have somthing he wants? Nonsense.

You call this an argument? My point is he is not "biased" against anyone in that house. He merely wants to take advantage of that open window.

White men have not in general been victims of either lynching or stalking. Victims have been overwhelmingly blacks and women, respectively.

So you admit that these are laws that discriminate based on race, creed, and gender.

They don't "discriminate" on the basis of race, they protect people from crimes committed solely on the basis of race, creed, gender.

"I thought that you said earlier that discrimination based on these precepts lead to horrible crimes?"

Violent acts against people merely because of their skin color, for example, are indeed horrible crimes.

"And yet laws that discriminate along these lines are good? Why is that?"

Again, the laws don't "discriminate." They protect people from discrimination. "In Nazi Germany, it was acceptable to persecute Jews because of their religion. That is a hate crime. In America, it has been okay for years to persecute gays because they are gay. That is a hate crime."

No, that is discrimination. It may even lead to crime. YOU call it a "hate" crime.

Whatever. It's persecution, whatever you call it, based on religion or sexual identity.

"Equal protection under the law deals with this situation. A crime of passion. Wait! He was angry! A HATE crime!"

No, a "hate crime," which is really a kind of shorthand, applies to crimes committed solely because of things a person has no control over, such as gender or race or disability. Just to be sure you understand the concept, because you clearly do not, any person can be a victim of a hate crime. A black man can kill a white man just because he doesn't like the color of the skin. That, too, is a hate crime.

"That same man make walk down the street the next week and shoot a black man because he's black. He doesn't know the man, or the man's name. All he "knows" is that the man is black. He kills him not because of anything in particular that this man has done. He is angry merely because his skin is black."

It certainly is murder, but it's a very differnt kind of murder than a "crime of passion," for example, wherein the victim intimately knows the murderer. But since you choose to deny the distinction, and seem to be intent on equating the two as equal under the law, what's the use of pointing out the difference?

"Yes, and the Dred Scott opinion answered fully all objections about the "constitutionality" of slavery, too, didn't it?"

Look, if you don't like the law, try to change it. Petition. Run for office. Become a lawyer. But don't tell me it's not the law. It's been the law for years.

Lars,

"What do you want--the guilty WHITEMAN to wear a scarlet H to the electric chair?"

Wow! Really revealing quote, Lars.

No, I want whoever is guilty of hate crimes, no matter what the color of their race, to pay the full penalty of law for committing such crimes. The distinction is clear. It has been made obvious by the excerpt I posted above.

Again, it's the law. Either live with it or change it.

Personally, I thank god I live in a country that protects people from crimes based solely on the color of their skin, or their gender, or their religion. I thank god I live in a society that recognizes that these crimes form a unique type, and are unique in their complex and devastating effects upon society.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Unc: >> If discrimination based on race, creed, gender, etc is a bad thing, why is it a good thing to enact laws that discriminate based on race, creed, gender, etc? <<

I presume you are speaking of affirmative action programs when you say "laws that discriminate based on race, creed, gender, etc?". If I am wrong, you must correct me.

First, to your knowledge, have I ever said that laws that discriminate based on race, creed, gender are a good thing? I find it tedious to have to defend opinions I haven't expressed.

I well understand the arguments in favor of affirmative action. They mainly say that, if a society has persisted in a widespread legal conspiracy to deprive people of their rights over the course of multiple generations, so that those people fall into poverty due to lack of education, lack of opportunity and lack of equality before the law, then it is not enough to say, "ooops, excuse me; we were wrong; starting now you are equal."

It is not enough because the victims of such a legal conspiracy are not made whole or made equal by such an admission.

It may be considered as analogous to saying that a corporation that has systematically colluded with its competitors to set artificially high prices and defraud the public of several tens of billions of dollars may be permitted, when caught, to say "oops, excuse us; we were wrong; starting now we will charge fair prices without collusion", while also being allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains in their bank account with no fine levied against it.

This is the argument. It has been in effect for about a generation now. I am not entirely decided whether the day has come to institute another method for compensating the victims of Jim Crow - one that did not institutionalize the victims position as victim, but merely sought to raise all who are impoverished to a level where their personal level of merit brings a comensurate level of opportunity.

That's my answer.

Flint:

Your entire recent reply is too tiresome to answer. Among other things, you put within a single pair of quotation marks an imaginary composite of words that I wrote over more than one posting. Untangling the mess you have made of my position is beyond me. I give you pleasure of your driving me off the field of battle. I just don't have the time or energy to deal with your clever distortions.

I suggest you declare victory, do a solemn little dance and beam with well-earned pleasure. Several more such excahnges and you may succeed in my ignoring you or leaving the forum altogether.

Yes! Woo-hoo! Victory may be nearly in sight!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 30, 2000.

Bravo, Brian. And do you mind if I exit with you? Trying to reason with irrational fundamentalists is a crock of ....

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Hey folks, these are merely OPINIONS being expressed. This isn't a WWF steel-cage match. The posting of your opinions allows those of us sitting on the sidelines to evaluate your arguments, re-evaluate our own learn and have fun in the process.

As none of you are legislators or Supreme Court justices, and none of you has egged another's house as far as I can tell, why not trade kisses on the cheeks, firm handshakes, and fruit smoothy recipes.

You're all good eggs as far as I'm concerned.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 30, 2000.

Celia,

First, for the record, the 14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Celia, when you add to the crime of murdering Sharon Tate, Manson's hatred of the fact that she was rich, and that it was the reason behind the murder, should his sentence have been increased by that very fact? Should "the rich" be a protected group with "hate crime" status as well? If not, why not? Please answer the same with respect to the Unabomber's hatred of the groups of scientists and business executives.

And certainly these laws discriminate. They discriminate by attempting to protect certain groups (e.g., selected "minorities") over others (e.g., the rich, scientists, business executives). This discrimination is manifested by increased sentences for violators, resulting in the "protection" of certain politically favored groups, while excluding others. Thus, a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

Next, please consider the following:

A crime is an illegal act that is punishable.

A thought of hatred is not a punishable act.

The crime merits a sentence. Say, twenty years.

If a murder has been committed, and the left-leaning judge sees the races were different and by that fact alone finds that "Yep -- hatred was involved, -- um... well... he couldn't prove to me that hatred WASN'T involved -- so, yeah - that's right -- that's the ticket -- hatred was there! I just KNOW it! Anyway, I'll be ok...as long as I don't have to look the victim -- I mean the perpetrator -- in the eyes when I sentence him..." Thus, the hatred becomes a component of the crime, increasing the severity of the sentence -- say, to twenty-five years.

The perpetrator's hatred -- his thought crime itself -- has therefore, in effect, brought about a separate sentence of five years.

In this context, please explain how the thought is not punished.

Finally, as Rich points out, please remember to stay focused on the arguments -- your (and others') ad hominem comments don't help your position.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Far out. When your opponents make you look like fools, declare them irrational, take your bat and ball and go home. *Especially* when they do so using your own words. Spoken like true adults.

From multiple discussions, we can see that what Brian, Celia and Peter have in common is an underlying belief that government is the cure to all our problems, real or imaginary. The government should protect us from one another AND ourselves, and provide us with manna from heaven. The only conceivable downside is higher taxes, but everyone should be willing to pay these unless they are greedy selfish bastards indifferent to the public weal.

What Uncle Deedah and I and several others realize is that this analysis is incomplete. It's just like saying we should give our children all the candy they crave, and the only conceivable downside is the small cost of buying candy, *well* worth it to make our children happy and satisfied.

In both cases, by far the most important costs aren't financial, they are long term social costs. We need to be careful what we wish for, since we just might get it. The Law of Unintended Consequence inevitably follows efforts to legislate cures to moral outrage, especially when we try to apply it equitably despite our widely disparate targets and degrees of outrage. You don't need to be a "fundamentalist" to understand this; indeed you must be completely short-sighted to miss it.

I've seen lots of pining for the good old days around here, when people were honest and hard working and ethical, all characteristics people develop when they must fend for themselves. Not even the "government is the solution to everything" people ever seem to long for a mythical time when government *provided* everything. Indeed, increasingly intrusive government has historically been a bad omen.

We can only ask people to take a good, close look at what the war on drugs has produced. What affirmative action has produced. What our entitlement programs have produced. All of these were motivated by the desire to "help and protect victimized people", and all of them have backfired badly, in the long term producing the *opposite* of what was intended. And once misguided programs are started, it's nearly impossible to discontinue them -- their bureaucracies have become entrenched and their constituencies (the "victims") have become permanent institutions. Celia goes so far as to "thank god" that she lives in a country willing to legally define a "victim class" worthy of discriminatory favoritism (to which, purely by coincidence, she happens to belong).

Of course, those who saw the problems coming and opposed such programs at the start were *also* dismissed as "irrational fundamentalists" that you just could not reason with. Believe me, it's no fun saying "I told you so" later. The do-gooders sincerely mean well; they're all heart. If only some of it were brain, we could probably find the best *workable* solution to the problem -- assuming we wanted to. I suppose if I were a member of an "officially favored" minority, I wouldn't want to. As I wrote in a related context, corruption is rarely opposed by its beneficiaries. Instead, it is *created* by those beneficiaries. Calling it by a different name doesn't change its nature.

eve:

One thing your questions and Celia's and Brian's comments make very clear -- the rubric "hate crimes" does not, and cannot, refer to crimes performed because of hatred of the victim. People (like Manson or the Unabomber) might hate the "wrong" victims, and in any case we can't read minds.

Instead, "hate crime" is a euphemism for granting special legal favoritism to approved groups. "Hatred" need not be shown in court to establish a "hate crime". All that needs to be shown is that the victim is a member of a politically correct group. And who gets to define these groups? Uh, those in power, maybe?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 30, 2000.

Flint,

Very good points. (Unk, you too.) I'd like to offer my take on one of your comments, though.

"The do-gooders sincerely mean well; they're all heart."

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the individual. I think many are motivated instead by a desire to bring the achievers down to the level of the non-achievers; they're driven by hatred, envy and jealousy of those who are doing better, have achieved a higher standard of living or station, etc. in life. Their declared objective of bringing the "downtrodden" up is instead just a cover or a secondary aim, to the extent the former proves more difficult to achieve.

In this context note especially that their so-called, trumpeted "compassion" is more often manifested by taking from the rich to give to the poor, rather than voluntary giving by themselves or others.

I also believe many of these people evade or willfully suppress these emotions -- because to face the existence (and any real or possible consequences) of these emotions directly would be too much for them to bear.

(Celia, Brian, et al -- please know that I am not including you in these reflections, as I obviously don't know you.)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Me: >> I suggest you declare victory, do a solemn little dance and beam with well-earned pleasure. <<

Flint: >> Far out. When your opponents make you look like fools, declare them irrational, take your bat and ball and go home. *Especially* when they do so using your own words. Spoken like true adults. <<

I see you took my advice.

Some clarifications are in order. I did not call you or your positions irrational. You are quite rational.

I did say that you consistantly distorted my position in an effort to gain an advantage that you did not earn honestly.

I recognize that your saying you made me look like a fool is quite literally accurate. This 'making' consisted of your drawing meanings from my words that they did not support, casting my positions to places they did not occupy on their own, and then claiming that these distortions of your own making were foolish things to say or believe. In that sense, "my" foolishness was very much your creation and not mine.

I will not sit still while you make me up and dress me up as a fool. If I'm going to be a fool, I'll do it honestly - on my own. You can characterize my walking away from this discussion as childish and petulant. I would find it much worse to continue to sit still for the demeaning treatment and the utter lack of respect you've been shoveling my way.

I can't change your attitudes or your actions. I certainly can't stop you from interpreting this departure as my stumbling away with my tail between my legs. I probably can't disuade you from treating others exactly as you have treated me - because you value what you think you have won here far above what you think it cost you.

All I can say is, if this "victory" was worth what you stooped to, then you are welcome to the taste of it. It is the last one you'll get from me.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 30, 2000.

Brian,

I'm unclear on the genesis and course of all this personal tension between you and Flint, but I hope you stick this one out. Although we disagree, I respect your opinions and civil approach -- and I think we've all got some really interesting stuff goin' here.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Hate crime laws are discriminatory, those on the side in favor of them have admitted as much.

If I were to be murdered because I was black, or Jewish, or gay, or whatever, it would be equally awful for me. But it would tear away at our society a lot more.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 26, 2000.

I tend to agree with Peter that crimes based solely on impersonal characteristics like race and gender deserve legislation targeted solely for that particular problem.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Consider this, each black person, woman, homosexual or jew who might qualify for protection under a hate crime law is exposed to the chance of being robbed, beaten, murdered or assaulted for reasons other than membership in a group - just like you. In that you are equal. Their chances of being the victim of a "hate crime" is not equal to your chances, if you are not a member of these groups.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 27, 2000.

Apparently some people would like to roll back the clock to the days when lynching of blacks was common and went unprosecuted, and beating of women at home was ignored and unpunishable by law.

Personally, I thank god I live in a country that protects people from crimes based solely on the color of their skin, or their gender, or their religion.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

I think that is proof positive that these laws discriminate in the favor of certain groups over individuals. So much for equal protection under the law. That is why I asked you, Brian, why laws that discriminate are good if discrimination is itself a bad thing?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Flint,

It was that loving, caring, beacon of warmth and joy Celia who called us irrational fundamentalists and inferred that we were in favor of lynching and wife beating, not Brian.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Celia reminds me of Fraser's ex-wife, Lilith.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), October 30, 2000.

Lilith? Surely you didn't...too late.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 30, 2000.

>> I think that is proof positive that these laws discriminate in the favor of certain groups over individuals. <<

As one Celia's posts pointed out, the law does not specify any particular group as more protected than another.

If the victim of the criminal was selected on account of religion, the law does not require that only Jews be protected. Every member of every religion is protected.

If the victim of the criminal was selected on account of race, the law does not require that only blacks be protected. Every member of every race is protected.

If the victim of the criminal was selected on account of sexual orientation, the law does not require that only homosexuals be protected. Every member of every sexual orientation is protected.

So your proof seems rather inadequate in the face of these fatcs.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 30, 2000.

So, if I as a white male am beaten by a white male who wants my wallet that is not a hate crime, but if a black who hates whitey beats me it is a hate crime. Thus, since the black who hates me will under these laws get a stiffer penalty (yeah right, calling Al Sharpton) to discourage his actions, I am not protected equally from a beating by whites as I am from a beating by blacks who hate whites.

No matter how you slice it it is still NOT equal protection under the law.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

>> I am not protected equally from a beating by whites as I am from a beating by blacks who hate whites. <<

You are "protected" (if that word is even applicable here - since either way we must assume you get a beating!) from being selected as a victim of a beating, purely and solely on the basis of your race.

Although, it would be rather paradoxical for a white to beat a white out of hatred for all whites, that possibility is addressed by the law, too. If it were to happen and be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, then the intent of the law is to include this crime as protected.

Just because it is an unlikely case does not mean it is not included. It is equally unlikely that a multi-millionaire would rob you of your wallet. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be prosecuted for it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 30, 2000.

Brian,

Focus on the perpetrator for a moment.

The perpetrator of a racial crime the equivalent of Manson's would automatically get a harsher sentence than Manson did, because he would be assumed to hate -- or did hate -- a politically favored group.

This is unequal treatment under the law, and is therefore unconstitutional, let alone immoral.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

My apologies to Brian. It was indeed Celia who called us irrational fundamentalists. And I haven't seen any effort by *anyone* to deliberately distort anothers' position. Lots of misunderstandings, lots of posturing and preening, but nobody's been dishonest.

Now, back to this interesting topic. What exactly do we mean by a "hate crime"? I have derived at least three definitions from what's been said so far:

1) A hate crime is one motivated by a generalized or stereotypical hatred, against a group rather than against a specific member of that group, although the crime itself is perpetrated on an individual member of that group at random. It is proposed that those whose crimes are motivated by such hatred be handed stiffer sentences, and by implication it is assumed that the legal process can consistently and accurately determine the state of mind of the criminal in passing sentence.

2) A hate crime is a certain type of crime not now specifically legislated against, but which threatens the social order. Proposed examples include (or might include) lynching, stalking, bullying, or harrassment. It is proposed that such behaviors be defined in useful detail specifically as crimes, punishable by law. These shall be crimes regardless of the description of either the individual committing them, or the victim. Basically, such laws create new crimes out of existing antisocial behavior.

3) A hate crime is a component of *any* criminal act where the perpetrator belongs to any of certain specified social subgroups, and the victim belongs to any of certain *other* specified subgroups. Larger sentences shall obtain in all such cases, and no hate need be demonstrated in court. In essence, this definition confers special protections upon specified subgroups, perhaps as compensatory damages for the sins of the fathers.

The question that arises is, if these behaviors are sufficiently bad, why have we chosen never to take action against them before? One possibility is that the traditional victims have never had enough political or legal power to protect themselves, or that prevailing social mores have led us to look the other way. And there's a lot of force to this position. The police have long recognized what they call "misdemeaner murder", i.e. one black killing another in the ghetto. Hardly worth investigating...

A possible contributing factor is that some of the specific proscribed behaviors are unacceptably hazy. I once decided to drive home by way of side roads, and for 10 miles of turns every few blocks, I followed someone making exactly those same turns. I didn't stop following her until I turned into my own driveway, by which time she was extremely nervous. Was I guilty of stalking? Not in my mind, of course. I was just going home. But in her mind? The problem with a crime like stalking is that, in theory at least, it can exist entirely in the mind of the stalkee.

As eve points out, thinking hateful thoughts should not be a punishable offense, even if we can objectively prove the hateful thoughts themselves. Punishing the *presumption* of hateful thoughts is Orwellian at best.

So one reason we've never taken as much action as activists would like, is because we can't think up an action that wouldn't do insult to the delicate balance between discretion and favoritism. A greater awareness and recognition that members of certain groups face unique threats based on certain common attitudes is all to the good, and likely would play a healthy role in determining sentences in specific cases. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act that Celia cites really amounts to this sort of cheerleading -- it neither defines any new crimes, nor increases the sentences for any existing crimes. It's just part of a worthy awareness campaign.

But attempting to codify and institutionalize this kind of general awareness poses the real danger of literal witch hunts. We need to be very careful with our specifications and tests, so that potential hate criminals can know exactly what behaviors are prohibited, and exactly what punishment they risk if they do it anyway. If such legislation is too vague, the Supreme Court will eventually throw it out anyway. And if it's specific, then we all know what we're discussing (which is always a BIG help).

Defining a hate crime is like defining obscenity. We all know what it is and we all know it's bad. And if any two of us could *agree* on what it is, we could write enforceable laws...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 30, 2000.

Let's make HATE itself a crime.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 30, 2000.

eve: >> The perpetrator of a racial crime the equivalent of Manson's would automatically get a harsher sentence than Manson did, because he would be assumed to hate -- or did hate -- a politically favored group. This is unequal treatment under the law, and is therefore unconstitutional, let alone immoral. <<

Manson is probably not a very good comparator to discuss, in that his sentence was exactly as harsh as the law allowed at the time he was sentenced. I further predict with absolute confidence that he will never be paroled and will die in prison. The only harsher penalty possible would have seen him dead a long time back, but it was not available to the prosecutor. Had it been, in all liklihood Manson would be dead right now.

So exactly what would be the practical injustice if a racially-motivated Manson were to receive a sentence of even 20 more years, if those 20 years were added to (just to pull a number out of my hat) 170 years, or whatever is the harshest penalty available?

Once you get to the extreme end of the scale represented by Manson, each and every criminal will be dealt with with the utmost extremity the law can produce. The practical effects are nil once you reach the 99th percentile of criminal behavior. Once convicted, such folks are locked away as long as society can manage.

As for the concept of a "politically favored group". I would refer you to my most recent reply to Unc Deedah. There is no politically favored group, as the law is written. You are covered under the law equally as much as any other person. The difference is that you are probably less liable to need it. If you did need it, it would "favor" you as much as anyone else.

I do understand that your point is that you see a racially-motivated (or otherwise "hate"-motivated) crime as no different than another crime that used the same means to produce the same immediate effect, but that had a different motivation such as robbery or sexual gratification. This is the crux, and I can understand your reasoning.

But, I do see a difference. These "hate crimes" do have effects beyond their immediate victim that spread into the community the victim was chosen by the perp to represent. It is no coincidence that the Ku Klux Klan chose to use terror against individuals, but this was subordinate to its value for holding an entire community in terror.

Even more than they are violent crimes, these crimes are political crimes. Yup. I said that. I realize that the whole area of creating "political crimes" is a HUGE red flag.

But when a crime is directed not truly against the victim, but at a commnity, in an attempt to modify its behavior and to make it afraid to do as it wishes, then the crime takes on a political aspect. This political aspect is built in, not by the victim, but by the perpetrator. We can recognize it or not, but it is there.

For example, look at the terrorist attacks on US embassies. What are they, if not politically-motivated violent crimes? They are designed to have a much wider effect than merely to damage an embassy or to kill whoever happens to be in them at the time. The victims are of negligible importance compared to their association with the USA.

A "hate crime" is similar in that it is wielded as a weapon not just against the immediate victim or even primarilly against that unfortunate soul, but rather it is perpetrated with the intent to terrorize every member of the group the victim was associated with.

I grant you that a bomb in an embassy, an airplane, a barracks is, viewed through one lens, just a bunch of murders. Nothing more. So many dead. So many wounded. End of story. Yet, for some reason (perhaps an immoral one), we tend to view them differently than as simple, irrational outbursts resulting in so many victims. We view them as crimes directed at our nation and all who live here. They are political. We see that. We resist that. We build up our armies so as not to succumb to that.

I respect that you may draw a different conclusion. However, I reject the idea that my own conclusions in this respect are immoral or unconstitutional. Or that the application of the law will necessarily create "favored" groups. Far from it. It simply recognizes that certain traditonally disfavored groups should not be subjected to blanket harrassment, promoted by the instrument of random violence.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 30, 2000.

I wonder....

If hate crimes are so terrible and deserve such harsh punishment, why don't we have laws that favor indifference crimes? You know, reward the folks who do not hate when they commit a crime? What if the crook with a club says "I love you man, nothing personal" before he bashes the skull of the guy at the ATM?

If hate is SO bad that it needs to be punished with extra penalties, doesn't non-hate need to be rewarded? Would not using both the stick AND the carrot speed up this process of eliminating the dreaded frowned upon "hate" crimes?

Since we have done so little in the past about these terrible crimes wouldn't it accomplish FAR more towards the objective if we rewarded folks who commit non-hate crimes. Afterall, we need to do all we can to halt these terrible hate crimes. Crimes that hurt the individual far more than does a similar head bashing by folks who do not hate, right?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Or that the application of the law will necessarily create "favored" groups. Far from it. It simply recognizes that certain traditonally disfavored groups should not be subjected to blanket harrassment, promoted by the instrument of random violence.

In one post he says these laws are for everyone. But in post after post Brian and his supporters continue to revert to talking about the KKK, and gay bashing, and violence against women.

See, these laws don't favor anyone, but they just happen to be the solution for past injury to minority groups. But they are not discriminatory in any way, even though in the past minorities were subject to unequal protection, so because of that we passed these laws, which are not about minorities.

Hate crime in the real world

Snip from the link....

A pack of fear-laced lies.

The men who murdered James Byrd by dragging him behind a pick-up truck in Texas two years ago, have been condemned to death or life imprisonment by Texas courts under existing Texas law, which includes a hate crimes bill.

Moreover, the most horrendous crime motivated by racial hatred in recent memory was certainly not ByrdBs lynching, which took place two years ago, but the murder of an 8-year-old white boy named Kevin Shiflett last April, in the very shadow of the nationBs capital. Kevin Shiflett was murdered by a 29-year-old African American, who screamed racial epithets at the youngster and slit his throat, while Kevin was playing on the sidewalk. In contrast to the killing of Byrd, which was the subject of presidential hand-wringing, Capitol Hill grand-standing and national editorial outrage, KevinBs murder was not even reported as a racial crime. To this day, it has been systematically and consciously kept out of the public eye. Collaborators in this suppression include local authorities, the media and every hypocritical organization - the Democratic Party and the NAACP foremost among them - that claims to oppose racial violence and stand up for civil rights.

For four months following the atrocity, the local police in Alexandria Virginia, where the crime took place, actively suppressed the racial identities of Kevin and his attacker. Now that the racial identity of perpetrator and victim are known, and the racist motive of the attacker is clear (he previously tried to strangle a white person and left racist notes in his hotel room), the crime has still not been declared a Bhate crime,B and the nation still could care less about Kevin Shiflett and his fate.

Far from regarding KevinBs slashing as a Bhate crime,B Democrats involved in the case, are on record praising the police gag and anxious to keep the racial aspects of the crime hidden. Alexandria Democrat and city council member Joyce Woodson said of the police suppression: BWhat they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world. I donBt think knowing that would have any impact on the way they investigated the case. It could have colored their approach in ways that would have been inappropriate.B Democratic Mayor Kerry Donley and Democrat council member William Euille agreed.** Representatives Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, the most vocal congressional advocates of hate crime legislation, have maintained a silence about Kevin ShiflettBs fate that speaks louder than words.

Evidently, hate crimes against eight-year-olds, if they are white, are ok with liberals. This is one reason why Republicans like Bush have opposed hate crime legislation directed at specific groups like gays (as a kind of human Endangered Species Act). Why should gays be protected from hate by heterosexuals, but not heterosexuals from hate by gays? (Think only of the attack by ACT-UP militants on St. PatrickBs Cathedral a few years ago.) Consider the fact that no liberal or feminist group has proposed making rape a hate crime, while rape is universally regarded as an act of hate. Could the reason be that such legislation would jeopardize another protected group - African American males - who commit over 40% of such crimes?

Beyond this problem lies a much larger one. Hate crimes, in fact, are Bthought crimes,B and thought crimes are the defining transgressions of anti-democratic, totalitarian regimes. The very essence of a totalitarian regime is, in some sense, its determination to punish the Bthought crimesB of those who disagree with its rule. For much of the left, this may not be a problem. After all, during the Cold War, many who now call themselves liberal were able to view the democratic West and the totalitarian East as Bmorally equivalent.B But for anyone concerned about the future of American democracy, it is a very real concern. It is dangerous to make individual conscience the target of prosecution by the state, however distasteful that conscience may be. The Christian cross or the Jewish star, are hateful symbols to some. A gay activist group in Chicago has already protested a proposal to hold the Southern Baptist Convention in that city as a Bhate crime.B

The problem of racism and similar hates is one of attitude not law. To turn attitudes into crimes is the antithesis of what a democracy is about. The charge that the Democrats are attempting to lay at the foot of candidate Bush with respect to the lynching of James Byrd is tantamount to the accusation that a skeptical attitude towards hate crime legislation implies a less than militant opposition to hate itself. In the right circumstances, this might eventually be construed as a crime. Those who defended the civil liberties of Communists during the McCarthy era, for example, often found themselves accused of being soft on Communism, and thus culpable too."

End snip.

But I am misguided because I wish to see EQUAL treatment under the law, rather than setting groups of people further apart over percieved or real unequal treatment under the law.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Uncle Deedah:

I see that Brian has now put forward yet another definition of a hate crime:

4) A hate crime is an act intended as a terrorist act -- that is, to strike terror into a specific group of people. The perpetrator need not hate the victim, and may in fact be a thug-for-hire with no personal stake in the crime beyond immediate financial gain. What characterizes a hate crime is that it is primarily, and by intention, a *political* act, with the purpose of either creating or preserving a specified social order.

You have the same problem I do on this thread -- we are chasing a will 'o the wisp, a chameleon crime that isn't what it was when you critiqued it last time, like nailing jelly to a tree. No wonder we are accused of dishonest argument. We're expected to *know* that we're fighting last post's battle, and a "hate crime" is really something else this time.

What I'm beginning to sense is that the "real" crime is committed in the souls of men (and women), and the "overt acts" proscribed by law are merely the outcroppings, the shadows, of what's really important. The picture is emerging that the ideal goal is to punish sinful thoughts, but due to mechanical difficulties (we can't read souls), we must be satisfied with punishing the mere expression of sinful thought when it occurs. However, we really really *really* want to convince ourselves that certain expressions (behaviors) imply underlying sinful thought sufficiently strongly that we can safely assume it and punish accordingly.

By these lights, "equal protection of the law" is a *misfortune*, imposed on us by mechanical limitations, which we are struggling to overcome. As Brian wrote, we really *DO* want to STICK it to those we don't like, who may have actually *done* precisely what someone else did but whom we like better because his thoughts are more pure. We really want to tune our vengeance according to the amount of evil underlying the crime, according to our own definition. We truly want a government of men and not of law, *provided* WE are those men, and YOU are not. And these are deep and dangerous waters.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 30, 2000.

Unc, I see you have cut and pasted an article from somewhere that cites an instance where the author believes a crie was comitted against a child that should have been considered and prosecuted as a hate crime.

I have just a few comments to make on this article. First, it is a partisan rant, not on the validity of the "hate crime" law, but against Denocrats and "liberals" and accuses them as a group of not caring about a "hate crime" against this child. OK. I am not a Democrat, so that blanket accusation has no force against me specifically. I consider myself a liberal, after a fashion. If the representation made by the author of the article is factually correct, then was probably a reason to consider this a hate crime. It appears justified.

What I want to know is why the author feels justified in making such sweeping generalities about Democrats and liberals? I thought conservatives were big on personal responsibility. Exactly how is it that all Democrats and all liberals are being held accountable for the shortcomings of clearly limited set of individuals? This is inconsistant. The accusation is not even true. The author clearly states that this information has been withheld from general knowledge. How can you hold people responsible who do not even know of the existance of the injustice?

As such, this is just a piece of trashy political propaganda in my view. Why bring it into this discussion?

Next, I'd point out that if you agree with the author, then the crux of the article is not at all that a hate crime law is unjust as law. The author is only complaining that the law was not applied where it ought to be. The author could be right. The author could be wrong. I'd like to hear what a jury said on this. But one thing the author can't be used for is to back up the contention that the law itself is flawed. The blame, if it is justified, belongs squarely on the shoulders of the prosecutor, who is being scolded for not applying it.

If the purpose of the author is to argue that the law should not exist because it is unjust whereever it is applied, then complaining that it was not applied is a strange way to go about it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

MIT is terminating this thread because of excessive nitpicking.

-- (PhilGreenspoon@MIT.edu), October 31, 2000.

Brian,

I agree that the article is a political rant. I posted that article to show two things, well, actually the two things are really sort of the same thing. These laws further divide us as a nation, and they will not be enforced to the satisfaction of everyone.

Now, as you have repeated over and over these laws are needed because some groups were not treated fairly in the past. So rather than write laws that seek to right past wrongs, which is really only something that can be done on an individual basis anyway, why not seek to strengthen the equality of treatment of ALL people under current law? I believe that this would be the more noble and moral cause, and would also be something that nearly everyone would agree is fair. Treat all people equally under the law, and give all people equal protection under the law.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting essay that includes some comments and statistics on "hate crimes." Take a look...

How Democrats Bamboozle Black Voters

Back atcha after a while...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Brian,

Regarding the Manson analogy, you completely missed my point -- so allow me to clarify it.

Using the general structure of my analogy, pick out ANY hypothetical where the increased sentence has a practical effect. Would there be unequal treatment under the law or not? If not, why not?

Than you state that "...there is no politically favored group as the law is written..."

Well, since groups are nothing but aggregates of individuals, an individual convicted of a crime against any designated protected group is faced with a harsher sentence than an individual convicted of the same crime against a group not so favored (e.g., the rich, scientists, business executives).

So in this context, "race" is politically favored (i.e., better protected via harsher sentences) over an economic class or career- choice group. Why? Political pull. Why else?

And your notion that, for example, a Jew would feel more terror if another was murdered nearby than a rich person felt who lived near Sharon Tate, makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain this further?

Finally, could you pick a definition out of Flint's options? I think it will go far towards simplifying the discussion.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Hannity and Colmes had this discussion last night. A statistic brought up says that in a major city (can't remember which), only blacks have been prosecuted under the hate crimes law. A rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweet. A crime is a crime, *violent* crimes should be the only discriminator, not hate. Bush is right.

They had the daughter on to talk about her involvement in this TV ad and of course she defended that it wasn't partisan. NAACP should have their tax emempt status taken away IMO.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 31, 2000.

Brian, my apologies for linking to what you may see overall as yet another political rant.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

>> Now, as you have repeated over and over these laws are needed because some groups were not treated fairly in the past. <<

As I understand my own views on the matter this is not a compensatory law, such as affirmative action. It doesn't compensate anyone for any past actions against them or against their group. I don't see this law as an issue of making it up to some group for being treated unfairly.

Of course, if there were never any instances of such crimes in the past, it would be kind of silly to write a law to address a kind of crime that simply does not exist. But, the FBI statistics on hate crimes do show that such crimes exist and can be distinguished from other crimes. I suppose in this limited sense I see the law is needed because of past actions - but only in the sense that the horse must come before the cart and not the other way around.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

eve: >> Well, since groups are nothing but aggregates of individuals, an individual convicted of a crime against any designated protected group is faced with a harsher sentence than an individual convicted of the same crime against a group not so favored (e.g., the rich, scientists, business executives). <<

And yet gender is "a designated protected group". If you can show me someone who does not have a gender, then I will show you someone who is left out of the protection of the law.

You are perfectly correct to say that a crime against a rich person that was committed for the simple reason that the perp considers the rich as vermin who must be destroyed is not addressed by this law. Not every quality that might inspire hate is listed in the law.

Similarly, the 15th(?) amendment forbids discrimination against someone based on "past condition of servitude" but it does not list all other past conditions that could affect how someone might be treated. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids depriving someone of their civil rights based on a limited list of qualities that might conceivably lead to deprivation of rights.

Does this mean that you think the 15th amendment was improper, should never have been ratified, and ought to be repealed?

The Civil Rights Act could not be used to prosecute someone who deprived another of their rights based on the length of their legs. Does this mean the Civil Rights Act of 1965 should be repealed or declared unconstitutional?

In order to be consistant, it appears to me that you'd have to take these stands.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

[If the purpose of the author is to argue that the law should not exist because it is unjust wherever it is applied, then complaining that it was not applied is a strange way to go about it.]

I think this is a misinterpretation, but with political rants it's hard to tell. My interpretation (FWIW) is that the author is taking pains to illustrate Definition 3 as I presented it above. The underlying purpose of "hate crime" legislation is (in the author's view) revealed as being equivalent to the "sexual equality" in the sexism thread Ken started, defined as denying equal rights to men. In other words, the *goal* is a blatant political spoils system. As always, the goal isn't equality for everyone, the goal is inequality in someone else's favor.

In theory everyone of any description is protected equally from hate crimes, just like the theory of affirmative action is that everyone should have equal ability to *compete* for advantage, but (of course) the actual advantage should be conferred on the most qualified individual regardless of race, creed, color, etc. In *practice*, affirmative action means a quota system, and in practice "hate crimes" are crimes against favored groups, the hate part being relevant only if it serves a highly partisan political agenda. Our legitimate fear is that "hate crime" legislation is nothing more than a shallowly disguised mechanism for enforcing that agenda.

And if there's one thing this forum and its predecessor have made clear, political agendas are incredibly powerful, leading otherwise intelligent people to tune out all reality in favor of a preferred position. The published "law" of the old forum nominally applied equally to everyone; this forum resulted from a concerted effort to ignore the law in favor of enforcing "approved opinion". In Unk's article, it was made clear that if the crime could be used as propaganda for the agenda, it was publicized to a fare-thee-well. An essentially similar crime that went *against* the agenda was carefully covered up, and the most critical facts in the case were the facts those supporting this agenda were careful not to release.

The apologists for hate crimes, throughout this thread, have been talking of equal inequality, and nondiscriminatory discrimination, and favor-free favoritism, and just injustices. Not in so many words, but clear from the descriptions. Pointing this out is called dishonest distortion, probably sincerely. Strong political agendas can not only see the collapse of the world as we know it where glitches are not even visible, they can lay guilt trips ("you're killing your children") on those who fail to toe the party line, and "disappear" those who don't get the hint, finally locking out everyone of the "enemy" persuasion. All under the guise of "equal rules for everyone, equally applied", of course.

It appears to me that some of us read "Animal Farm" as a cautionary tale, and others read it as an instruction manual.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 31, 2000.

Slightly OT - One slimey nit begs to be picked.

Charles Manson and three of his followers (Krenwinkel, Atkins, Van Houten) were charged with the Tate/LaBianca murders. All four were found guilty and sentenced to execution. Manson and other family members later received death sentences for the Hinman and Shea killings. The death penalties were commuted to life imprisonment in the 1970's when California law was changed.

I can just imagine what his hate crime defense might look like. {Shudder}.

"You made your children what they are... These children that come at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up... You can project it back at me, but I am only what lives inside each and every one of you. My father is your system... I am only what you made me. I am a reflection of you. You made your children what they are..." - Charles Manson

-- flora (***@__._), October 31, 2000.

eve: >> Finally, could you pick a definition out of Flint's options? I think it will go far towards simplifying the discussion. <<

Sorry, eve. For the reasons I stated earlier, I will not be engaging Flint in further discussion in this or other threads.

I feel he has forfeited my respect, not as a result one or a few instances, but by a long standing pattern of abusing and distorting my positions, drawing unjustified inferences and identifying them as facts, associating me with people whose opinions I disagree with, and engaging in other unsavory debating techniques I will no longer subject myself to. I no longer care whether these actions are the result of malice or simple misunderstanding. The end result is the same and his persistance in this course shows no sign of ending on its own.

That is my judgement and those are my perceptions. I can't expect others to share them, but they are mine I will act on them in the only appropriate way I know.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

Brian,

I'm sorry you feel that way about Flint. Whether you're aware or not, Flint and I have been involved in many lengthy debates over the past year. And sometimes I felt he was misreading my positions -- maybe purposely at times -- I don't know for sure; but I don't think so. And he's made a comment or two that really pissed me off. And sometimes he got personal with me -- and I with him. In the heat of debate it happens from time to time -- we're human -- we get carried away.

But if I may speak in his behalf, deep down I think he's got a good heart and just loves a spirited debate on a fascinating topic. Plus, he's apologized to you and has put forth some interesting, critical points, some of which just beg to be addressed further. So I hope you give him a break here so we can all move on and work together to really analyze this thing to its essence. I think we all stand to benefit.

Back atcha later...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

A few things, err, nits to pick at.

And yet gender is "a designated protected group". If you can show me someone who does not have a gender, then I will show you someone who is left out of the protection of the law.

If everyone has a gender why bother making it "a designated protected group"?

Not every quality that might inspire hate is listed in the law.

Why not? So much for fairness and equal protection under the law. These extra laws don't even punish hate equally.

Certain lines of thought have been singled out as more evil than others, but since it is not yet possible to punish people for having politically incorrect thoughts these laws seek to do essentially the same thing by targeting those people when they commit a crime.

People who do not think in the way those in power want them to will be punished with extra diligence, NOT because they do more harm, as we have all agreed, a dead guy is a dead guy, BUT because the way the THINK is the crime.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Unc: >> If everyone has a gender why bother making it "a designated protected group"? <<

Why, indeed?

The words "designated protected group" are eve's. That is why I put them into quotes. My point was that the law is not built upon designating several groups of people and giving them extra protections. The protections of the law are universal.

Brian: >> Not every quality that might inspire hate is listed in the law. <<

Unc: >> Why not? So much for fairness and equal protection under the law. <<

Then what is your position on the other laws I cited (including the Constitution of the United States) which follow similar formulas?

Here is the text of the 15th amendment:

Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Obviously, the constitution can't be unconstitutional. Yet, this amendment does not state that a person's rights cannot be denied on the basis of wealth, good looks, or odor.

By your reasoning and eve's, this amendment creates a special category of people whose rights are protected more than others. My point is that everyone has a race, a color and a previous condition of servitude (which in most cases will be a lack of such servitude).

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

No Brian, that is not a good comparison. The 15th is all about fairness and equality, not singling out for special consideration or repression. If the 15th said that folks who have been in the past victims of vote discrimination may now get a free ride to, and milk and cookies at, the polls you would be on to something. As it stands it merely says that your right to vote cannot be abridged because of these conditions. It is not by any means the same thing as to say that hatred of these conditions should single you out as extra bad when you commit a crime.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Was Colin Ferguson prosecuted for a hate crime (mass murder of non-black commuters on the LIRR)?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 31, 2000.

>> No Brian, that is not a good comparison. <<

[Shrugs.] OK. What about the Civil Rights Act?

>> The 15th is all about fairness and equality, not singling out for special consideration or repression. <<

What makes it so? It doesn't even use the word "equality." It does use the words "race" and "color".

And, as I have been telling you and eve several times, the HCPA doesn't contain language that would require unequal consideration or repression for any group.

>> If the 15th said that folks who have been in the past victims of vote discrimination may now get a free ride to, and milk and cookies at, the polls you would be on to something. <<

Unc, you seem to be implying that the HCPA somehow distributes milk and cookies to somebody.

I believe you are incorrect about this, both literally and metaphorically. Since I can't believe you meant this literally, what kind of metaphorical milk and cookies do you think are being handed out here? To whom?

>> It is not by any means the same thing as to say that hatred of these conditions should single you out as extra bad when you commit a crime. <<

And this is a very vague and (dare I say it?) badly-written sentence that once again seems to hinge on a basic misunderstanding of the law we are discussing.

You seem to be implying, as best I can make out, that the crime and the act of hating do not need to have any particular connection to one another in order to result in the crime (not the criminal) being "singled out as extra bad."

I think you are wrong and I would like more proof than merely your assertion that you are right.

I think a racist shoplifter won't be prosected more vigorously for shoplifting because he is racist - even if he is a Korean-hating black and the store owner he stole from is Korean. The racism and the crime could have only a casual connection, if any, and the racism certainly doesn't result in an aggravating circumstance.

I am convinced a gay-hating murderer won't be prosecuted more vigorously merely for hating gays, even if the victim is gay, unless the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence to convince a jury that the murderer:

- hated gays enough to kill one, and

- knew or believed the victim was gay, and

- that this knowledge or belief played a decisive role in the selection of the victim or that it aggravated the nature of the crime.

Can I guarantee that this law will never be misapplied? No. Every law can be misapplied.

Can I guarantee that this law will result in justice? No. No law can guarantee justice.

When The murderer of George Moscone and Harvey Milk can successfully plead the Twinkie Defense, it only proves beyond a doubt that nothing about the results of a trial can be guaranteed. Nothing.

That kind of inequality is inherent in the entire system of laws, courts, lawyers, juries, judges and appeals. It isn't going away. It is no argumwnt against a law to say that it will share the same failings and imperfections as every other law.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

Not to generalize to broadly, but we've long noticed that power corrupts. But any workable political system involves some people having inordinate power -- politicians, police, judges, the military, key journalists, etc. As Brian makes clear much earlier, people are highly variable, emotional beings. In general, people with inordinate power cannot be trusted to use that power in ways the people in general consider proper.

Our method to prevent this has been to exercise great specificity when delineating criminal activity, to presume innocence unless guilt is established beyond any reasonable doubt, to disallow evidence illegally gathered, to reject rumor or secondhand tales and otherwise follow strict rules of evidence, to categorize crimes into categories of severity (in Brian's amusing but accurate terms, as XS,S,M,L,XL), and so on. All of these principles developed out of common law over many centuries of experience with arbitrary decrees by the nobility, who could take a dislike to you and punish you for anything or nothing, as severely as whim struck them, at any time.

Without question it's possible to take this too far, and tie a judge's hands to the point where, in particularly unusual fact situations, he may be obliged to impose a sentence almost everyone would agree is inappropriately severe or lenient under the circumstances. Some reasonable discretion must be left to adapt to particular cases, no two of which are precisely identical.

But even such discretionary variability requires some predictability -- it must be tied to *determinable* facts in the case, in some way people can generally agree on. And the "hate crime" principles seem WAY too muzzy and ill defined -- a combination of presumed motivation of the accused, and of what the judge might happen to find offensive, and of political partisanship. At the extreme, "hate crime" legislation seems to extoll corruption for the very sake of the benefits corruption might bestow on us, should the judge's despotism prove benevolent enough.

Brian and Celia might be well advised to consider a case where they are themselves falsely accused of hatred, and must stand before the other for judgment. What defense can you mount, when your well- meaning judge *knows* you harbor evil hatred, and your denials only add dishonesty to the list? Your only protection is our carefully developed rules of evidence and presumptions of innocence and meticulous legal procedure -- they very things you wish to discard because they get in the way of punishing hatred or conferring special benefit on favored groups or *whatever* the goal of this legislation really is. Our safeguards are there to protect YOU.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 31, 2000.

J'accuse!

-- (Robespierre@the.reign_of_terror), October 31, 2000.

Brian,

First, you never answered the underlying point of my Manson analogy. Please go back to the top of my recent post to you that starts with, "regarding the Manson analogy..." and respond to the question: "Would there be unequal treatment under the law or not? If not, why not?"

You then either ignored or missed my contention that "race" is in fact politically favored over "class" and "career." Please reread my comment on that in the same post and respond on point.

Then you state that I'm correct when I say that the rich are not included in the groups that inspire hate. ThatBs an obvious fact that is not my point. My point there and my question to you is, in your opinion, "SHOULD the rich be included?"

IBm not yet clear on why youBre bothering with the 15th Amendment, though. Are you implying that that one passage now opens up the Constitution to all groups that find ways to whine, wheedle and bribe their way into it? I hope I misread you on this one.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is massive. Could you quote the passages you wish to invoke?

Finally, why are you evading a definition of "hate crimes"? If you won't accept the options from Flint, will you accept them from me if I adopt them?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Brian you said earlier "Obviously, the constitution can't be unconstitutional. Yet, this amendment does not state that a person's rights cannot be denied on the basis of wealth, good looks, or odor.

I will concede that point. But I think if you are paying attention you will see that those boundaries are being pushed even today. Obese people are pushing for inclusion under anti-discrimination laws, gays are pushing for or have been included in various anti-discrimination laws, depending upon the specific law involved. It is an open can of worms, and we seem to be opening more cans as we go. Soon, if this trend reaches it's logical conclusion nobody will be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. If you need to hire somebody to answer the phone at your business and a deaf-mute applies for the job you will be stuck hiring that person because it will be illegal to discriminate against against that member of a protected group that has faced discrimination in the past. This is the path that these laws set us on, make no mistake about that. But that is a side issue, perhaps one that deserves it's own thread.

Now, let me rephrase my "badly written sentence" in a way that may be clear to you, forgive my often inability to express myself clearly.

The crux of the 15th Amendment is NOT that any group of people should be treated differently, it is intended to apply the law (the right to vote) equally to all groups of people. Now it is true that these people for whom the 15th was written, like the ones your hate laws seek to protect, were denied the equality of the right to vote. Perhaps a better way to phrase the 15th would have been to exclude who was not allowed to vote rather than head down the slippery slope of beginning to list what conditions allow you to vote. But that too is a side issue.

Hate laws do not treat people equally. You yourself have said that some manifestations of hate are NOT covered by these laws, these laws are designed to punish certain thoughts of hatred, while not punishing other thoughts of hatred. You can slice that sixteen ways to Sunday but you will never be able to equate an attempt to punish certain types of hatred as more evil than other forms of hatred as a manifestation of equal protection under the law. That truth is self evident.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

>> First, you never answered the underlying point of my Manson analogy. [...]"Would there be unequal treatment under the law or not? If not, why not?" <<

As I have tried to make clear, if you count any inequality of sentencing for similar crimes as "unequal treatment", then manifestly, yes, the law will result in unequal treatment. As I have stated before, this shold not (in my opinion) be a conclusive argument against this law for these reasons:

1) Crimes themselves are unequal. No two are alike. To some extent the principle of justice requires "unequal treatment" for any two crimes.

2) Human beings apply the law. So long as this is true, human beings will differ. This factor also renders inequality. No two judges and no two juries are alike. For this reason, the law will undoubtedly result in "unequal treatment."

If you were to refine your question to ask: does the language of the law require unequal treatment for the (theoretically) same crime, then I would answer, no, it does not. As for why I say this, let me repeat myself...

As I understand these crimes, they are fundamentally different in their nature from crimes where there is no motivation to commit the crime arising out of despising the victim for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

If you see absolutely no difference in nature between these crimes and those that are motivated by more conventional motives, such as a desire for personal gain, then you will naturally disagree with my conclusion. There is no avoiding this disagreement.

I have tried several times to explain the differentitation I see in the nature of these crimes. You may refer to my earlier posts to see my reasoning. You may either accept this reasoning or not.

>> You then either ignored or missed my contention that "race" is in fact politically favored over "class" and "career." Please reread my comment on that in the same post and respond on point. <<

Unless the "political" favoritism you cite is embodied in the language of the law, the law does not contain such favoritism. As for the undeniable fact that the motivations that are codified in the law do not include each and every motivation that could arise, I do not view this with alarm.

I do not for the evident reason that such a law could not possibly foresee every instance where an irrational motivation of hatred could arise. If it attempted to codify each and every possibility that coulds arise from now to eternity, the list would become endless. I also understand that this fact bothers you extremely and it seems to you to comprise a prima facie case that the law is shot through with bias or favoritism somehow.

That is why I cited the 15th amendment and the Voting Rights Act. These laws, too, strike me as suffering from the same difficulty you see as insurmountable in the HCPA. Yet, these laws have been upheld, even enshrined in the constitution. That is why I said you must, as it seems to me, object equally to the defects in these other laws that you decry in the HCPA. I await your answer on this point.

>> Then you state that I'm correct when I say that the rich are not included in the groups that inspire hate. That's an obvious fact that is not my point. My point there and my question to you is, in your opinion, "SHOULD the rich be included?" <<

I see no compelling reason for this inclusion. Nor would I strongly object to it. If it somehow made you feel more comfortable I would be personally happy to include it, although I fail to see a compelling need to.

The obvious pitfall would be the same as you and others have been urging forward on other fronts. Namely, that the inclusion of class could result in the capricious application of the law to inappropriate arenas, by inviting the arguement that a straightforward robbery was motivated by "class hatred" and then ginning up a case that thinly justified such an interpretation. I can easily see a prosecutor attempting this ploy. I can less easily see a jury swallowing it.

>> I'm not yet clear on why you're bothering with the 15th Amendment, though. Are you implying that that one passage now opens up the Constitution to all groups that find ways to whine, wheedle and bribe their way into it? I hope I misread you on this one. <<

What group has ever bribed their way into the Constitution?

That aside, just reread my earlier posts. If they remain unclear to you, I despair of making them much clearer.

>> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is massive. Could you quote the passages you wish to invoke? <<

Essentially, the act made it unlawful to deprive a person of their civil rights (if I am remembering aright) on the basis of race, creed, color, or gender, but not on the basis of class, state of health, credit rating or any other particulars.

This is the general drift of what I would like you to address. Since you seem to believe that limiting the list of protected conditions renders an inherent inequality of protection and this is immoral, what is your take on only protecting rights based on the limited list presented in the Civil Rights Act, while excluding others?

>> Finally, why are you evading a definition of "hate crimes"? If you won't accept the options from Flint, will you accept them from me if I adopt them? <<

Rather than how I define hate crimes, isn't it more to the point how the law defines them?

Clearly, I could try to define them to my satisfaction or to your satisfaction, but what would be the point? It is how the law defines them that carries any weight or makes any difference.

Either one of us could do a web search and try to pin down how the (various) laws that have been passed, or are being considered, have defined them. At a minimum, it would be interesting to see how much variation there is in this.

As a rule, any two states rarely end up with the exact same wording on any law, however generic the intent of the law. The major exception I know of is when it is believed the law may have trouble passing a Supreme Court review and there is reason to believe a particular formula of words will pass muster.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

>> ...these laws are designed to punish certain thoughts of hatred, while not punishing other thoughts of hatred. <<

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No!!!!

No thoughts are punished. Crimes are punished. Acts are punished. Thoughts are not punished. How the hell many times can you repeat this untruth and how the hell many times do I need to correct you before you understand?

It is only the particular criminal act that arises from the thought that is being punished. Without the criminal act there is NO CRIME to punish. Arrrgh!

I give up. We agree to disagree on this.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 31, 2000.

YES YES YES YES!!

A criminal who HATES his same race neighbor because the neighbor's dog shits on his lawn will not get EXTRA punishment if he acts on his hate, it is not the wrong (or right) kind of hate. The hate, an idea, a THOUGHT.

Yes, you are punishing the ACT, but if the act gets EXTRA punishment because of the THOUGHT behind the act, you are indeed punishing the thought.

And now we return to our regular scheduled threads.

;-)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Brian,

Your comments are in brackets; my prior remarks are in carrots.

[As I understand these (hate) crimes, they are fundamentally different in their nature from crimes where there is no motivation to commit the crime arising out of despising the victim for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.]

Please explain, then, HOW the fear of a rich person living near Sharon Tate is "fundamentally different in its nature" from the fear of a Jew living near a murdered Jew.

[As for the undeniable fact that the motivations that are codified in the law do not include each and every motivation that could arise, I do not view this with alarm...I do not for the evident reason that such a law could not possibly foresee every instance where an irrational motivation of hatred could arise. If it attempted to codify each and every possibility that coulds arise from now to eternity, the list would become endless.]

Where would YOU draw the line, and why? What groups would you add if you could?

[That is why I cited the 15th amendment and the Voting Rights Act. These laws, too, strike me as suffering from the same difficulty you see as insurmountable in the HCPA. Yet, these laws have been upheld, even enshrined in the constitution.]

Although I'm no expert on this Amendment or the Constitution (so I may be overlooking something), I see it as prima facie discriminatory, because it's very selective. Are YOU comfortable with its list? Should other groups have been included? Do you feel the Amendment is necessary? What do youthink it means that you can't be denied the right to vote on the basis of your race but (arguably) could on the basis of your religion? (May we pass on the Voting Rights Act for the moment? I get your drift.)

>> Then you state that I'm correct when I say that the rich are not included in the groups that inspire hate. That's an obvious fact that is not my point. My point there and my question to you is, in your opinion, "SHOULD the rich be included?" <<

[I see no compelling reason for this inclusion. Nor would I strongly object to it. If it somehow made you feel more comfortable I would be personally happy to include it, although I fail to see a compelling need to.]

Why do you (apparently) feel the fear of a rich person living near Sharon Tate "less compelling" than the fear of a Jew living near a murdered Jew?

[The obvious pitfall would be the same as you and others have been urging forward on other fronts. Namely, that the inclusion of class could result in the capricious application of the law to inappropriate arenas, by inviting the arguement that a straightforward robbery was motivated by "class hatred" and then ginning up a case that thinly justified such an interpretation. I can easily see a prosecutor attempting this ploy. I can less easily see a jury swallowing it.]

What about the very real fear felt by a rich person living near Sharon Tate? Should that mean nothing? I thought the very basis of your position was that you wanted to prevent this type of fear. In any case, your "robbery" argument doesn't address the Unabomber vs. scientists and business executives analogy. What about those "groups"?

>> I'm not yet clear on why you're bothering with the 15th Amendment, though. Are you implying that that one passage now opens up the Constitution to all groups that find ways to whine, wheedle and bribe their way into it? I hope I misread you on this one. <<

[What group has ever bribed their way into the Constitution?]

I'm not aware of any. But by your passing over the other means, I assume we're in agreement with the whining and wheedling, then. :) In any case, could you please address the point or refer specifically to something you said earlier, cut and paste, etc.?

[Essentially, the (Civil Rights Act of 1964) made it unlawful to deprive a person of their civil rights (if I am remembering aright) on the basis of race, creed, color, or gender, but not on the basis of class, state of health, credit rating or any other particulars.]

Well...since all these rights were afforded us in at least the 5th and 14th amendments, why do you feel this Act was necessary? It seems redundant to me.

>> Finally, why are you evading a definition of "hate crimes"? If you won't accept the options from Flint, will you accept them from me if I adopt them? <<

[Rather than how I define hate crimes, isn't it more to the point how the law defines them?]

No, for the sake of this discussion -- that is if we really want to tackle this issue, it's CRUCIAL to define the subject matter. If you want to conform to the laws and they differ, just pick any one for starters -- and I'll go with it. With all due respect, Brian, are you more comfortable in that what we have so far is merely "jelly" and that this being the case we'll never be able to nail it to the wall -- so there's no way you could really "lose"? I'm hoping you have at least enough confidence in your position that you'll allow for a definition.

[No thoughts are punished. Crimes are punished. Acts are punished. Thoughts are not punished...It is only the particular criminal act that arises from the thought that is being punished. Without the criminal act there is NO CRIME to punish.]

Brian, I'm still not sure I follow you here, so bear with me. Do you feel that hate is an integral part of the criminal action, such that when you add the thought to the act, it somehow alters the action?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Uncle Deedah:

Yes, obviously if punishment for the same act varies according to the presumed motivation behind the act, then this is punishment for wrong thought. I think Brian is saying that otherwise identical acts become different crimes because of the presumed different thoughts the criminals were thinking, and thus deserve different punishments.

But you have the basic notions upside down here. Preferential treatment is NOT something that just unfortunately happens to emerge from such legislation because of our effective inability to read minds. Instead, preferential treatment is the *purpose* of the legislation in the first place, as a way to enact a legal version of affirmative action. The goal is to introduce bias and corruption into the legal process because our goals are good and our hearts are pure and our preferred groups are better than yours.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 01, 2000.

Flint,

We have gone around the mulberry bush so many times on this thread that I would be surprised if things did not come out upside down, or even inside out for that matter.

I understand very well that these laws are about preferential treatment, it is why I started this discussion. I am not sure if we have changed any minds, or if we have simply dug the trenches deeper on each side, but I think it is important that our side gets a chance to air our ideas of why we feel these laws are misguided. And I am glad that for the most part things remained civil, even without a censor watching over us.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Unk:

You keep insisting that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. You keep saying that if 2+2=4, therefore 4=2+2. The problem you face is, this truism simply doesn't fit the agenda. It CANNOT be accepted, however obvious, logical, or self-evident it might be. Remember y2k?

What can you possibly say when Brian writes that two otherwise identical crimes should be punished differently because the thoughts behind them are different. But we aren't punishing thoughts, oh no! We are punishing crimes. These are different punishments because they are different crimes. How are these crimes different? Because the *thoughts* behind them are different. But we're not punishing thoughts! And around and around we go.

At some point, doesn't it become legitimate to question someone's integrity here? Or are our agendas so strong we are sincerely blind to even an obvious identity? I can only wonder.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 01, 2000.

The thread that keeps on giving.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), November 01, 2000.

and going, and going and ........

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), November 01, 2000.

>> and going, and going and ........ <<

Well, while paying respects to eve and Unc, I am going to slide out of it. I looked carefully at eve's many questions in her last reply and in my view most or all of them have already been addressed elsewhere in a slightly different context. I have been repeating my main points, clarifying my main points and restating my main points for some time now. I feel I have made my case about as well as I can make it and answered the questions as dutifully as I can.

For me, the thread has looped back a bit tighter each time, but now it has grown so big and repetitious that I see no real point in going on. See you kids on another thread. Don't look for me here.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 01, 2000.

Geez, Brian -- I was just gettin' started... :(

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.