Hate crimes revisited

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Some time back we had a real go around debate in regard to "hate crimes" legislation. I still believe that these laws are misguided at best, and ready made for abuse at worst. Seems that the following figures bear me out.

Libertarian Party Press Releases

February 15, 2001

Shocking FBI study: Blacks are more likely to be arrested for hate crimes

WASHINGTON, DC -- African-Americans who thought that hate crime laws would protect them against rampaging white racists are in for a shock: A new FBI study reveals that blacks are proportionally one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

"This new hate crime study is Jesse Jackson's worst nightmare," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "It appears that he and other African-American leaders have been duped into crusading for laws that have condemned a disproportionate number of blacks to prison.

"In light of this study, it's fair to ask who poses a greater threat to the black community: Racist, violent whites -- or oblivious black politicians?"

The hate-crime issue was thrust back into the national spotlight on Tuesday when the FBI released its "Hate Crime Statistics" report for 1999, which is part of the agency's annual Uniform Crime Report.

Law enforcement agencies nationwide reported that 2,030 whites were arrested for hate crimes against blacks, while 524 African-Americans were arrested for such crimes against whites.

Adjusting for the fact that blacks make up only 13% of the population, blacks were statistically one-and-a-half times more likely than whites to face prosecution for hate crimes.

"Unfortunately, hate crime laws have boomeranged on blacks," said Dasbach. "African-Americans thought that hate crime legislation would protect them, but instead they're being used as another legal weapon to prosecute them.

"And though Americans may assume that politicians who write such laws are well-intended, it's obvious that for blacks, the road to prison is paved with good intentions."

The study also revealed that, shockingly, 87 African-Americans were arrested in 1999 for hate crimes against other blacks, meaning that even among same-race crimes, some minorities face heightened jail terms because of hate crime laws.

"Hate crimes aren't just for KKK members anymore," said Dasbach. "They are now being applied even to same-race crimes -- apparently giving racist police, prosecutors, or judges another weapon to use against African-Americans."

The solution to this disproportionate application of hate crime laws is simple, said Dasbach: Eliminate hate crime laws.

"Racist criminals, whether white or black, should be punished for their crimes, but hate crime laws aren't needed to do that," he said.

"Murder is murder and assault is assault -- regardless of whether the criminal was motivated by racist hate, generic hate, or pure greed, lust, or envy. People should be prosecuted for their actions, not for their opinions."

Such a straightforward system of punishing criminals for their crimes, not their thoughts, would make the criminal justice system more fair, more simple, and more effective, said Dasbach.

"Real crimes -- like rape, murder, and robbery -- don't require police to play a guessing game to determine whether they actually occurred, but 'thought crimes' do," he said. "For example, how is a police officer supposed to determine whether a hypothetical black criminal chose a robbery victim because he was rich, because he was white, or because he was rich and white? And why should it make a difference? People should be prosecuted for their actions, not for their opinions."

The bottom line is that crimes against a certain protected class of citizens should not be treated more seriously than crimes against anyone else, said Dasbach.

"To do so is un-American, and a violation of equal justice under the law," he said. "It also creates the ironic situation we now face: Laws that were supposed to stop racism apparently have racist consequences -- making hate crime laws themselves a hate crime against African-Americans."

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001

Answers

Unk:

To be honest, I didn't read your whole post, but it reminded me of a movie I watched last night [for the second time]. As usual, I forgot the name of the movie, but it will come to me in the middle of the night tonight.

It was about a guy who had spent his adult life doing the Nazi White Power thing and ended up in prison after shooting a few black folks that threatened his home. He, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the whole thing was bullshit after seeing the folks who presumably believed as he did accepting drugs, etc. from Hispanic prisoners and then passing them along to the White Power advocates, and being raped by these same folks when he didn't "buy into" what they were doing. In case you haven't yet seen this movie, he worked in the laundry with a black guy who asked him "What the hell was THAT you pulled at chow today? Those folks were protecting your ass and you dissed them!" He'd fallen "head-over-heels" with the concept of "I'm right. THEY'RE wrong!", and when he realized that people are just people and there are good and bad people in every movement, he stopped caring about who was "covering his ass."

When the rest of the populace gets to this point, there will no longer be any need for hate-crime legislation.

It's easy for me to sit back and say [which I will] that, IMO, few crimes are committed that DON'T involve hate, but I'm not [except to Maria (joke, Maria!) one of the hated few.] I also seem to live in an area that tolerates folks with different thoughts. [I've not only NOT been stoned to death, but invited over to people's homes.] I've never suffered the torment of being gay or Jewish, or black. There's always a "There but for the roll of the genetic dice go I" kindof thing rolling around in my mind, though.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Anita,

Sounds like it was "American History X". Very good movie.

Now you can sleep well tonight!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 17, 2001.


Question for Unk: Aren't there some cases where the hatred motive (of blacks, Jews, gays, etc) is pretty damn obvious?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 17, 2001.

The movie you speak of is ‘American History X’ with Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, and Stacy Keach. I’ve also seen this movie a few times and Norton plays the older brother to Furlong’s younger brother. Prior to going to prison, Norton was a leader in Stacy Keach’s White Power organization. You will remember him making out with his girlfriend when he heard someone breaking into his car. When it was all said and done, he forced the young black dude to place his head on the curb where he preceded to stomp on his neck and break it.

I’ve never had the pleasure of doing any ‘hard time’ but the depictions were probably somewhat accurate. If you recall, he spent all day alone with the other black prisoner in the laundry and over a long period of time they grew to respect each other. The White Power brothers were not too excited about this transformation and decided to ‘bring him around’, so to speak. In the meantime, the little brother still at home (Furlong) was working hard at living up to his idolized older brothers reputation, with Keach prodding him on.

The ending of the movie provided the harshest lesson and I highly recommend that you rent or buy this excellent piece of work and see it for yourself. You might invite your younger teens to watch this with you.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 17, 2001.


Thanks. That was INDEED the name of the movie. It had been several years since I'd seen it the last time, but I'd forgotten a great deal and last night's reviewing maybe helped me understand why my mind had chosen to forget some things.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


You will remember him making out with his girlfriend when he heard someone breaking into his car.

Minor correction here, Barry. He was "solidly fucking" his girlfriend when his younger brother came in and told him that there was a black guy coming up the walk with a gun. The black guy never broke into ANYTHING. I'm not suggesting that the black guy was innocent, but it's not every day that I remember details like this.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Barry,

I have to agree with Anita's version of the scene. Apparently it made quite an impression on you, Anita.

I just love the differences in communication styles between conservatives and liberals.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 18, 2001.


LOL.

Yeah...It's based on envy. When one has a waterbed that's a foot away from the closest wall, there's NO WAY that one's house could resonate the "bang, bang, bang, bang" that I heard in that movie during that scene. It's good that I post to/read this forum so rarely. That new guy, Michael will probably start a new thread because I used an anglo-saxon verb.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Oh yes, I did remember that he was ‘fucking her brains out’ but in a rare moment of courtesy, it occurred to me that a calmer description might be in order. As to what caused his ire, I will have to recover my DVD of this movie from my daughter and replay the scene.

Lets see…..breaking into a car or approaching the house with piece in hand. Where is the justification for anger I ask?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch,

The whole concept dangerously replaces greed, hate, envy and most importantly power with race and religion. All are good excuses for personal crime but we make a mistake by trying to qualify tribalism as special. Wouldn't matter much in China but it matters here.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 18, 2001.



Clarification on the movie…….

The opening scene finds Norton and girlfriend gettin’it on in his bedroom, late at night. Three black ‘crips’ pull up in a car and two of them get out. One of them goes up to Norton’s car and breaks the driver’s side window with a tire iron. This wakes up the younger brother (Furlong) who then tells Norton what is going down. Norton grabs what appears to be a 9mm semi-auto, opens the front door, shoots the black guy that is standing near the porch with a piece, shoots the guy that broke the car window as he is running away, and then empties his clip into the escaping car which is driven by the third ‘crip’ gang member.

He then comes back to the second guy he shot (who is still alive) and kills him. It is not clear exactly how he did this but he was out of ammo so the implication is that he either stomped him or hit him with his gun.

This story takes place in Venice Beach, which is about 35 miles due north of where I live. See this movie!!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.


Question for Unk: Aren't there some cases where the hatred motive (of blacks, Jews, gays, etc) is pretty damn obvious?

Answer for Peter: Of course.

Question for Peter: Is the guy who beats a person to within an inch of his life because of hate more or less evil than the guy who beats a person to within an inch of his life because he needs crack money?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 18, 2001.


BTW, Anita…..

You made this remark:

“The black guy never broke into ANYTHING.”

My mental reaction was; that for some reason you were attempting to ‘defend’ the black dudes in this situation. Isn’t it amazing what the mind can fool you into believing you saw with your own eyes? I had not seen this movie for at least two years but the details were somewhat fresh in my mind. You had seen it the night before and did not remember the black guy breaking into the car.….very interesting.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.


I saw this movie last night. The black guys that tried to break into the racist's car were the same ones who lost the basketball game to the Aryan gang (not his "white power organization). The gang terrorized the neighborhood before the incident that led to Nortons character going to prison. I think its interesting that you remember this gang as an organization.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), February 18, 2001.

Barry:

It was either selective editing on MY part, or we saw different editions of the movie. Just out of curiosity, I did a search this morning. I reviewed several sites that talked about the movie. This one seems to be pretty complete and sees the movie from different eyes.

While I would agree that SOMETHING woke Danny up, I sure don't remember seeing anyone break into a car [which another reviewer said was a truck]. What *I* remember was seeing the black guy approaching the house with a gun in his hand, and I consider home invasion a FAR more serious offense than car theft. I'm STILL confused about this one. If someone is stealing your car, why are they walking up to your house with a gun?

I kindof remember [from the first viewing years past] that Derek's dad had been killed by some blacks while putting out a fire. I didn't see this the second time, and wouldn't even have remembered seeing it the first time had some reviews not jogged my memory.

I'll never know. It was very late when I watched the TV version of the movie, so I could have dozed off on occasion. I don't remember seeing Danny driving in a car with a desire to kill black folks. I feel like I was supposed to recognize Danny's killer at the end, but I sat there thinking, "Who are you?"

One review I read stated that Derek's tattoo distracted the viewer's attention from his muscles. Nooooooooo! That guy could have had a tattoo of a toilet on his chest and I STILL would have concentrated on his muscles, not to mention that every time I looked at the guy's face I thought, "Dang, you're a good looking man."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.



Alice, in the movie the ‘racists’ were of many colors. Don’t let yourself fall into that ‘only whites are racist’ trap. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You also said: “I think its interesting that you remember this gang as an organization.”

They looked pretty damn ‘organized’ to me. The white guys in the basketball scene were all the same people in Stacy Keach’s Venice Beach group (he was on the bench cheering them on). The White Power/Aryan brothers in prison were from all over the place.

Anita, it was in fact a truck parked in the driveway of Derek’s house. You never see the guy with the gun going up to the porch but Derek sees him with his back turned when he looks through the doors ‘peep hole’. The window breaking is what wakes up Danny. You are correct about his fireman father being killed by black drug dealers during a fire call. BTW, have you seen Norton in Fight Club with Brad Pitt?

I hope more of you see American History X and come back to this thread with your take. We all will have viewed the same film but what did our mind see?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.


Alice:

There's NO guarantee that my memory serves me well, but I got the impression that what started out as a "gang" BECAME an organization, perhaps while Derek was in prison. In fact, after he was released from prison several people impressed on him that "We're organized now." Danny's recently obtained tattoo was DOC [disciples of Christ.] Yeah...a gang could have a name like that, too. I dunno, though, I think Derek had a tattoo like that as well. [Those muscles distracted me from paying much attention to his tattoos.]

Unk: Since I was here, I finished reading the article you posted. I thought it was silly. Hate crime laws are themselves a hate crime against African-Americans? This is a stretch. If black folks are engaging in hate crimes, they SHOULD be punished, just like everyone else. The author thought that blacks would be upset by this? The author thought that blacks didn't know that there's a segment of THEIR population who hates whites as much as the segment of the white population that hates blacks? The author thought that blacks didn't know what that Farakken [I have NO CLUE how to spell his name] guy says about Jews?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


"Fight Club" is one of the most under-rated films ever, IMO.

(Anita: It's spelled Farrakhan.)

(BTW, great discussion, guys. Haven't seen the film but you all "bring it to life".)

-- back to lurking on this thread..... (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 18, 2001.


Fight Club

I'll put it on my list of movies to rent while SO is on contract out of state. He's not a Pitt fan, and I doubt he'd appreciate watching me drool at Norton. Heh. I'm laughing now because my son and I had discussed this past week how some kids thought he was gay in Junior High because he wasn't yet interested in girls. He said, "Actually, I WAS interested in girls, but didn't want to look like a drooling moron. Is THAT so bad?" I said, "No. The world doesn't need more drooling morons."

One drooling moron in a family is enough, eh?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


For the life of me I can’t understand why hate merits additional punishment beyond the act itself. In fact some hate is good and very natural and healthy – to hate the Nazis, for example – or to hate someone who has tried to do you or your loved ones harm. But why punish someone simply for being irrational and/or an idiot (e.g., racists), as long as they don’t carry it out or threaten to carry it out?

If we agree with that, then the logical extension is to agree not to administer ADDITIONAL punishment for when the irrational and/or idiot racist takes the next step – he/she commits (or threatens to commit) an actual crime, which happens to be motivated by their hate. Otherwise, you’re punishing a thought (by means of the ADDITIONAL punishment), which, IMO, defies common sense as well as contravenes our basic constitutional rights and freedoms.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 18, 2001.


Ladies, for some major league drool time, see Brad Pitt in Guy Ritchie’s new film ‘Snatch’. This is the best picture I’ve seen in years.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.

Anita, SO would **love** this film; it's so "Anti-Pitt". He's a very underrated actor, and this role is NOT what you'd expect. He's definitely NOT a "pretty boy" and aside from maybe Legends of the Fall, I think it's his best role.

I've never been a "Brad Pitt Fan", but I do admire the chances he takes in some of his roles.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 18, 2001.


I loved Brad Pitt in "Seven", which was, I think, one of the scariest movies in recent memory, and has the most riveting, edge-of-your- seat, nail biting conclusion I've ever seen in film.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 18, 2001.

*I* realize that if I were on the TB2000 EZBOARD, I'd have demerits for taking this thread off topic. I sure wish I had a better memory regarding names of movies and names of actors/actresses. Okay...I wish I had a better memory overall.

I'm not a Brad Pitt fan either, Patricia, but I recently watched a movie that SO simply REFUSED to watch because the star was one of those men characterized as sex idols today, which leads me to wonder if I actually DO sit there and allow saliva to drip down my chin. Much like Pitt's role in that "Tibet" flick, the guy wasn't portrayed at all as a pretty-boy or even a sex object. Anyway, I've written down these movie titles and will get around to renting them eventually....sometime when I'm alone, with nothing better to do and no one around to see me drool.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Answer for Deedah:

The first person is worse than the crackhead, IMHO.

The crackhead should get the book thrown at him for aggravated assault and robbery. I don't care if poor baby is an addict. Screw him.

The other person should get worse.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 18, 2001.


Since this has morphed into a Brad Pitt thread...

I rented 12 Monkeys a couple weeks ago. Pitt was absolutely awesome in it. I had no idea he could act.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 18, 2001.


Anita,

I believe the young man that kills Danny was one of the kids that he confronted earlier in the movie when they were trying to beat up another white kid in the bathroom. I thought the whole scene of the "gang" driving up to steal Derek's vehicle was to indicate that they were trying to draw Derek out so they could kill him. That is why the one guy went up towards the house with the gun. Sort of an ambush.

BTW, I thought the whole scene of a bunch of white, chain smoking, beer guzzling, neo-nazis winning the basketball game was ludicrous. I mean like these guys (especially the big fat caveman guy) could play the game let alone win. Stretched the imagination.

I don't think you need to be envious as it would be my understanding that a correctly executed, rythmatic, slosh, slosh, slosh would match a loud bang, bang, bang any day, IMHO. Perhaps a drool bucket or rag would help you while watching these thought provoking movies.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 18, 2001.


I’m with you on the B-ball take, JBT. Norton doing a 180° ‘Kobe’ jam was just a little too much. BTW, why the new disguise? I liked your old handle and besides, you don’t hide too well:>)

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.

Why Ra, whatever do you mean?

Are you implying that I am too large to "hide out"?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 18, 2001.


Anita,

Silly? Minorities pressed for these laws, and now it has been shown that minorities are more likely to be charged with violations of these laws. Not quite what they were looking for I don't think.

...87 African-Americans were arrested in 1999 for hate crimes against other blacks, meaning that even among same-race crimes, some minorities face heightened jail terms because of hate crime laws.

Blacks hate other blacks? Can you explain this? Or is it just as I feared, bigoted prosecutors are using these laws in ways that those who called for them did not foresee?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 18, 2001.


Unk, I think you know very well the answer to your question. No group shows the hatred for blacks like other blacks. They heap all manner of disrespect on each other, both verbally and physically. So what’s new?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.

Unk:

I'm not really familiar with the details of these hate-crime laws. As I said previously, my personal opinion is that MOST crimes are based on hate [other crimes are based on greed, passion, etc., thinking about embezzlement, fraud, and the "How dare you be in bed with MY husband?" scenarios.]

I think the author is taking a lot of license in speaking FOR the black community [as though there IS, or HE CAN SPEAK FOR one community. There IS no one black community, just as there is no one white community. *I* like Jesse. You already know that. You ALSO know that I live with a "beaner." HE likes Jesse. But, we're both liberals. SO's brother, OTOH has no use for Jesse, Sharpton, or Hillary, for that matter.

I suppose 87 people hating each other sounds like a lot. Out of how many, I ask? Barry has a point, but I'm not sure he understands his point. The African-American community is the biggest mish-mosh of various cultures in America. SOME folks are products of race-mixing of years past, some are new immigrants that came from cultures very alien to this society, some are the stereotypical welfare frauds. Their only common link is that they have more melanin than some others. They are heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, atheists, etc. Why would one think that they could [or should] hate each other less than folks with less melanin?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


I just saw the Reverend Al Sharpton on some Fox show. He talked like CLinton had taken a new office in or near Harlem. Did I miss something? I thought he was taking a lot of heat for a high dollar office in Manhatten.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmetnconspiracy@NWO.com), February 19, 2001.

It's certainly conceivable that a same-race crime could validly be prosecuted as a hate crime. For example, if gayness were involved. Also, as Anita points out, you could have a hate crime if, for example, there was hatred of immigrants. When I worked in DC, it was well known that the Africans who seemed to be driving all the taxicabs were the object of displeasure, to say the least, among many blacks for taking those jobs.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 19, 2001.

Eve, I'm with you.

Unk, when the commercial came out, during Bush's campaign, that showed a chain at the end of a truck and pointed to Bush's non-support of hate crimes, this statistic came out. Well, not on the "liberal" media but I heard it on Fox (the right wing media :) As I recall, it said that of all the states that had hate crime laws, these laws were enforced only against minorities (blacks). So, blacks were for laws that actually were used mostly against them. It didn't make for big news. I do find it very interesting.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 19, 2001.


Deedah says a person who kills because he hates a Jew or a Black, Gay, etc. is no worse than a crack-addict who kills for money for his next fix.

So, I guess following this logic, a person that drags someone to death because he "hates niggers" is no worse than a wife who loses her temper and fatally shoots her husband.

And a person that burns another man alive because of that man's religious beliefs is no worse than a drunk driver who causes a fatal accident.

And a person that beats the brains out of a guy because he likes to have sex with other men is no worse than a hunter that accidentally kills his buddy.

Come on Unc. Use some of those brain cells.

-- . (@ .), February 20, 2001.


@,

Use MY brain cells? Don't be a dufus.

To compare an accidental hunting accident to a premeditated gay bashing is retarded.

Perhaps you can tell me why a guy who kills a person because he is black is worse than the guy who kills someone because they have money that he wants?

How is the guy who shoots a homo more evil than the guy who shoots his former employer?

How is the guy who drags a man to his death because of race more evil than the guy who drags a man to his death because that man looked at the killer's wife the wrong way?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 20, 2001.


I think one problem with this discussion, and it is an intrinsic problem, is that when you are talking about first degree murder, you hit a ceiling where nothing you can say will worsen the crime, it is so bad. But, Unk, let's take your own example of a savage beating but short of death. Here is where motivation can be taken into account to increase punishment, and I think should be.

Motivation has always been used in deciding punishment. With crimes of similar magnitude, premeditated has always been treated worse than unpremeditated. A crime of passion will always get somewhat more sympathy than a cold-blooded murder for gain. Yet the net result in all these cases will be the same, a dead person, and this last fact is all you seem to be able to focus on.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 20, 2001.


The point is, the justice system is screwed totally. Cases in point:

o A person who shoots someone in the head and puts that person in a vegatative state for the rest of their life is only charged with "assult with intent to kill".

o Many of the poor are imprisoned unjustly, while the rich pay their way out through well connected lawyers.

o We waste millions on executions, proven to not affect the violent crime rate, while releasing thousands of dangerous offenders back on the street.

o We employ the same methods of rehabilitation used centuries ago, when Leary showed in the 60's that psychedelic drugs can reprogram violent criminals.

o We lock up 100's of thousands for victimless crimes such as prostitution and drug use, while proclaiming that we need more prisons.

o Once prosecuters have "made their case" there is insufficient means of recourse for a fair trial, examination of new evidence, DNA, etc.

The system needs overhauling pronto. Hate crime legislation should only be the beginning.

-- me (right@here.now), February 20, 2001.


Nonsense Peter.

I am precisely focusing on motive. That is what @ was missing in his silly comparison. You seem to think that "hate" is a motive far worse than any other motive, while I see "hate" as simply a motive that results in a crime no more or no less horrendous than any other similar crime with a differing motive.

A premeditated "hate" beating is no more evil than a premeditated beating motivated by a different kind of "hate". You mentioned that a crime of passion would garner more sympathy than a cold blooded murder motivated by gain, yet what is a "hate crime" if it is not a crime of "passion"?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 20, 2001.


me,

That is rather humorous. You bemoan the injustices of overzealous and corrupt prosecutors in one sentence, and in the next you wish to give them a tool (hate crimes laws) that they can easily abuse (as indicated by the FBI study), resulting in more corruption and injustice.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 20, 2001.


Hate-crimes bill moves ahead

House panel backs legislation named for dragging victim

02/20/2001

By Christy Hoppe / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – A House committee passed a hate-crimes bill Monday after hearing emotional testimony from Texans who said they have lost loved ones and had their sense of security shredded because of violent acts of prejudice.

The Judicial Affairs Committee passed the bill, 7-2. A similar measure cleared a Senate committee last week.

In attendance at the hearing Monday were the mother, father and sister of James Byrd Jr., a black man dragged to death behind a pickup in Jasper in June 1998.

"It's been almost three years since my son was killed, but it seems like yesterday," Stella Byrd told committee members. "It's something a mother, a family, never gets over."

Mrs. Byrd spoke of how her son never met his granddaughter, who asks why he is not around.

She said she does not want the 3-year-old to hear how her grandfather died without being told that something good – such as the hate-crimes bill named in his honor – came from it.

"I don't want no one to go through what I've gone through," Mrs. Byrd said.

The bill builds upon a measure passed in 1993 that enhances penalties for crimes motivated by hate.

Prosecutors have rarely used the initial law, saying it is too vague because it doesn't state specifically what kinds of groups are protected. The new proposal delineates that the law protects those targeted because of "race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry."

A similar bill was defeated last session, caught in presidential politics. Senate Republicans defeated the bill in 1999. Observers said it was to shield former Gov. George W. Bush, who did not want to sign a bill that might anger conservatives by offering legal protections to gays.

Those opposed to the current bill have raised many of the same objections and said that it allows the law to treat the same crime differently based on what was motivating the offender.

Prosecutors could send someone to prison longer because of the rallies they attend or the books in their home, said Marc Levin, vice president of the Young Conservatives of Texas.

"While there is an underlying crime, the additional increment of punishment is based on speech or thought," he said.

He and other conservative organizations said they prefer the existing law that does not offer specific groups special protections.

They have cited their concern that gays could win legal protections and extended civil rights based on their inclusion in the bill.

"Hating all people is just as bad as hating a particular group," Mr. Levin said.

In 1999, 286 hate crimes were reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety, with almost half of them targeting black victims. Gays were attacked in 63 incidents, whites in 35 and Jews in 20.

Mark Briskman, director of the North Texas Anti-Defamation League, called hate crimes a "a terrorist act" against an entire group of people.

He said to leave gays out of the protections, when they are clearly targeted, "would be sending a signal that we don't care about those people."

The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, told committee members that she has heard all the arguments against the hate-crimes bill, including that it cannot stop hate.

"Just as the capital murder statute has not ended murder in Texas, this bill would not end hate crimes. Instead, it would act to prevent hate criminals from becoming hate murderers by punishing them longer, earlier," she said.

She said the state has always used criminal penalties as a deterrent and to send a message.

"We have enhanced penalties for assaults on police officers, legislators, oil wells, pigs, chickens and cows. In this time we should offer equal protection to people who are attacked because of their skin color, their religion, their sexual orientation," Ms. Thompson said.

Maria Ross of Katy testified that on June 19 – the traditional Juneteenth celebration commemorating the day slaves in Texas learned of their freedom – she awoke to a burning cross in her front yard.

"It turned our safe haven into a nightmare," she said. "My life has been shattered."

The five white men who pleaded guilty recently to the crime wore white pillowcases, "and they set that cross to intimidate us," Ms. Ross said.

Last Christmas, someone drove a truck across the family's yard, smashing their holiday lights and decorations.

She said in the aftermath, she has dealt with the fear of her 7-year- old daughter and 3-year-old son. And she acknowledged that her family will move, saying that racial hatred is driving the family out of a white, affluent neighborhood.

The state could offer her little help, she said, and it was the federal government that stepped in and applied civil-rights laws to prosecute the offenders.

The leader received a 10-year sentence, his lieutenant received three years and the others got 13 to 15 months, Ms. Ross said.

Cruz Saldana told the committee of the 1994 death of his brother, Ernie, who was fatally beaten in Austin by five men who called him "faggot" and "queer" as they struck him. The prosecutors told the family that the Texas hate-crimes law was too vague to use, Mr. Saldana said.

"If that's not a hate crime, I don't know what is," he said, fighting back tears.

He said it was the third time he has come to testify before legislative committees trying to strengthen the hate-crimes law.

"I hope this is the last time," he said, but ended his testimony by pledging, "I'll keep coming back as often as I have to."

The committee vote Monday was along party lines, with Republicans Will Hartnett of Dallas and Robert Talton of Pasadena opposing the bill.

Voting in favor were Democrats Ms. Thompson; Juan Hinojosa of McAllen; Jaime Capelo of Corpus Christi; Joe Deshotel of Beaumont; Domingo Garcia of Dallas; Jim Solis of Harlingen; and Carlos Uresti of San Antonio.

-- Bill Moves Ahead Without Bush (to@stop.it), February 20, 2001.


Deedah, you're just playing with words. If I commit a crime of passion, blowing away some son of a bitch who's been screwing my baby, of course I'm filled with hate. That hate is a hell of a lot more justifiable than the "hate" crimes we're talking about.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 20, 2001.

Well said Peter.

Deedah, if you found my post "humorous", you're a sicker puppy than I had gathered.

-- me (right@here.now), February 21, 2001.


Peter and me,

Bear with me here...

Should the ones who kill for fun -- for a lark -- just because they get a kick out of seeing their victims suffer, yet feel no hate, get a lesser punishment than ones who kill for racial hatred? If so, why?

In any case, why, for example, would it be any different to kill someone who's rich (e.g., the Manson murders) or CEOs (e.g., the Unabomber murders) than to kill someone because they're of a different race? I mean, in all these cases, the perpetrator was probably seething with hatred, to the point of killing someone; and all victims are equally innocent. So, given a hate crimes law, shouldn't we add the rich and business executives to the protected groups?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.


‘Justifiable’ hate is in the mind of the beholder.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 21, 2001.

Eve, regarding your first paragraph, I refer you to what I said earlier about a ceiling, beyond which I'm not interested in going, let us just get rid of this awful person. A thrill killer is a perfect example, he should get a lesser sentence than nobody.

Your second paragraph is quite interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing practitioners of class hatred treated especially harshly if this could be defined in a practical way for purposes of the law. If this is not possible, that is no reason in my mind not to protect categories of people that we can protect.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 21, 2001.


I also stand by my earlier post. In fact, I will add another situation that, to me at least, is much more troubling than hate crime legislation:

o Instead of placing them in a penal colony somewhere the sun don't shine, notorius killers, such as Dahmer and McVeigh, are made into celebrities by the media, who feature them on primetime interview programs.

-- me (right@here.now), February 21, 2001.


Peter,

Your statement that "A thrill killer should get a lesser sentence than nobody" appears to contradict the hate crime advocate's (and I assume your) position that "The perp of a hate crime shall receive greater punishment than a similar, but non-hate-crime." Can you reconcile this?

Let's say studies were done, and it was easier to determine class membership than racial membership. So, at least for now, the law was changed to reflect this. Thus, the rich would be a protected group, and the blacks would not. Would you be just as comfortable and accepting of this as you are with race, and not class, as protected?

And an additional question -- that is...how do you determine hate in, say, a black perpetrator/white victim crime, if the white victim was robbed and murdered? And let's even say that the guy admitted that he didn't care for whites, but didn't really hate them -- but committed the crime mainly because he needed money.

And assume another case where the perp was white, didn't admit to racial hatred, but hated big guys (and admits it) because he didn't make the football team, and the victim was big, but happened to be black, so the white guy killed him. Assume "big guys" isn't a protected group for now (but the legislature's workin' on it), but that race is. Should we assume he's lying and really probably hated blacks (assuming he'd then deserve the greater penalty)? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.


Peter,

Perhaps you were saying that you'd make an exception where thrill killers wouldn't be handed a lesser punishment than the hate crime perps; that you'd essentially want a "hate and thrill crime" law. If so, please skip my first paragraph above. I have follow-ups here too, though, but alas -- there's only so much time in the day...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.


Eve, I am not saying that every "non-hate crime" should be penalized less severely than an equivalent "hate crime". This was the point of my ceiling argument.

Furthermore, I agree with you that from the standpoint of vile motivation, there are cases which are even worse in my judgement than "hate crimes", i.e. horribly sick sadism.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 21, 2001.


So if a horrible sick sadist robs a bank should he get more or less time than a professional bank robber?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.

And ley me guess: If people like Eve and Deedah had their way, OJ Simson would not have been tried in civil court, because this would have been "double jeopardy". And the cops that beat Rodney King would have got off scott free. Right guys?

-- me (right@here.now), February 21, 2001.

Jesus, Deedah, if he does a horrible sadistic thing while robbing the bank, of course he should get more time. If I understand your wee meaning.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 21, 2001.

Wrong, moron.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.

Sorry Peter, that was directed at the other moron.

;-)

And no, you seem unable to grasp logic, that was not my meaning.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.


Oh, yeah, it's true, I am a dick.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.

I think maybe you people are illustrating the point here? We don't really know what a hate crime is exactly, but we know one when we see one. Except we don't agree with one another about what we see.

And this is exactly the problem with such a law -- it is relatively arbitrary in meaning, but not at all arbitrary in use. In use, those with the power use it against those without the power. This is how vague and arbitrary laws are *always* applied, just like every other law but even moreso.

In a roundabout way, "hate laws" are an attempt to create discriminatory policies and sentencing, favoring specific groups, without actually coming right out and admitting this. That such attempts end up backfiring is as predictable as clockwork. When will they ever learn?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2001.


OK, Unk, please explain your meaning. If the two bank robbers act the same, they should be treated the same? No disagreement there.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 21, 2001.

If the two bank robbers act the same, they should be treated the same? No disagreement there.

AHHA! But if two killers act the same you want to treat them differently if one of then "hates" his victim?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.


Since I stopped by, I wanted to mention a few things.

1. It looks TO ME like hate crime laws are designed to deter folks from hating. In fact, if you look at the actual FBI study, or the Department of Justice site, they're specifically targetting youths who may have joined hate groups. Like every other area in which the law tries to encourage/discourage one behavior versus another, these "deterrents" may or may not have an influence. I seem to remember growing up realizing that if I ever had a desire to kill someone, I should pick someone other than a policeman, because the penalty was greater for killing those people.

2. According to the web-sites I mentioned above, the judgment on whether a hate-crime has been committed versus a "normal" hate crime [yeah...I know it sounds funny] is put forth by law enforcement agencies who have had training in this stuff. It doesn't look to me like a prosecutor can use the hate-crime status if the law enforcement agency didn't record the crime as being one that coincided with the requirements and stated so in the report.

3. I have my suspicions; I'm not interested enough in the subject to research it, but it seems to me that these laws are/were designed to cover stuff that other laws don't. For instance, I doubt that my town has a law against someone burning a cross on my lawn. Who woulda thunk to pass a law like that? So, I would look out my window and observe some fools burning a cross on my lawn and simply remove the dead wood the next day. For others, a cross being burned on their lawn is a clear message of hate.

4. Tom Cruise was the "some other supposed sex idol" I couldn't remember before.

5. I think I now know why I didn't see the car window breakin in American History X. The movie came on T.V. again last night at 1am. This scene started the movie. The scene was partially recreated and enhanced [as in the curb-stomping] later on in the movie. Heh. I was probably in the bathroom during this part, or making something to eat. I know I was doing a "marathon" of movie watching that night, so I use the breaks between movies to do these things.

6. JBT: I'd missed the scene with Danny in the bathroom the second time, as well [probably still making a sandwich], but I sat at attention last night [this morning] and checked out all the faces involved. I STILL didn't recognize any of them as the killer.

7. Regarding Bill's office, I've heard both, and I just don't care enough about it to learn where he REALLY is. It's not like he'll be inviting me for tea, so it makes no difference.

8. Peter...even with immigrants from Africa, a lot depends on the country of origin, personality-wise. I studied with two Africans at University and one was the son of a chief in a small community, while the other was from one of those countries constantly in a state of revolution. The first invited me to his community in Africa once he got home again. When I asked the second about his plans after University, he said, Revolu SHUN! [Um...yeah...he didn't invite me for that.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 21, 2001.


I saw American History X, it was disturbing to say the least but definitely a powerful movie. However I am becoming convinced there are two versions, perhaps from the controversy surrounding the editing disagreements of director Tony Kaye and New Line Cinemas.

Anyway, this is what I remember: Several guys (the ones from the basketball court) are breaking into Derek's Bronco(?), witnessed by Danny, he alerts his brother who grabs his piece, puts on his underwear, and slips on his combat boots. He comes out and shoots killing one, injuring other, shoots at the car as it screeches off, and the one left lying injured on the ground and pleading for his life, he orders to bite the curb and then proceeds to stomp on his skull. I'm pretty sure their father had been a policeman who was shot while on duty. And I think the younger brother Danny's killer was the little brother of the guy whom Derek stomped.

-- (cin@cin.cin), February 22, 2001.


Deedah, motivation was very important in deciding punishment before the concept of "hate crime" came into being. Now to confound me, you Clintonian-lawyer type, you have cunningly come up with an example where the motivation is the same, namely to relieve a bank of its money. But we can all see through that, I'm sure.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 22, 2001.

You're right Peter. I am a cunning linguist.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 22, 2001.

Can you answer the question Deedah, or does it suffice for you to call me names?

Why is trying someone for "violation of civil rights" not double jeopardy?

-- me (right@here.now), February 22, 2001.


me,

Hope this helps...

Double Jeopardy

Would you detail the precise tie-in of double jeopardy to the hate crime issue? And what is your point in posing the Simpson and King questions you asked of me? What did I say or imply that would lead you to ask this?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ