The House of Representatives voted to extend hate crimes protections those who are the victims of crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Here’s a quote from the New York Times:
By 237 to 180, the House voted to include crimes spurred by a victim’s “gender, sexual orientation or gender identity” under the hate-crime designation, which now applies to crimes spurred by the victim’s race, religion, color or national origin.
“The bill is passed,” Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, announced to applause, most of it from Democrats.
Similar legislation is moving through the Senate. But even assuming that a bill emerges from the full Congress, it will face a veto by President Bush on grounds that it is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable,” the White House said before the House vote.
The House did not pass the bill by a margin wide enough to override a veto, which requires a two-thirds majority. The Senate is not expected to do so either.
Debate over the legislation has been spirited, and while some of it has addressed whether the bill is really necessary, the arguments have also been colored by issues of conscience and notions of personal morality.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said the House vote represented “a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences.” Civil rights groups have long urged that people who are attacked because of their sexuality be given additional protections.
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a conservative lobbying group, told listeners to his radio program that the bill’s real purpose was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality,” according to The Associated Press.
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about. For example, I found this site, which makes the following claims.
Today, conservative groups and lawmakers warned that the measure undermines freedom of speech.
They say it could lead to arrests of Christians who speak out against homosexuality.
Conservatives also say the bill would make homosexuals more important than other Americans — because crimes against them would have harsher penalties than crimes against others.
Well folks this is false (I thought lying was in the 10 Commandments.), and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation does not curtail freedom of speech, so if the conservative Christian activists want to have public protests denigrating women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people, they can do so. However, if they commit a crime in the process of their “protest” and that crime is motivated by bigotry, they could get a harsher sentence. But they have to commit a crime. So they can say God hates women and gays all day long, but if they decide to go and beat up a women/gay man/lesbian/transgender person while yelling I hate bitches, fags, and dykes. The prosecutor will now have the option to take on a hate crimes charge to the assault.
It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.
What matters is the motivation of a crime. People will still be entitled to believe hateful things, but if they commit crimes motivated by bias, then they will have a harsher penalty.
Mythago, where did I say it’s okay to judge anyone’s thoughts? All I’ve said is that it’s okay to judge whether you intended to commit a crime or whether you knowingly committed one. What matters is the crime. Otherwise, everyone who’s ever fantasized about doing something illegal is guilty of a crime that should be punished legally, and I hope we agree that way lies madness.
As for “stacking the deck,” if you follow the FBI link that I posted back at 45, you’ll see that the reason hate crimes are fair is because anyone can be charged with them. I’ll quote the pertinent part again: “Among the 8,433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. The remaining offenders were of other or multi-racial groups.”
So I think it’s perfectly appropriate to take a black murderer as a hypothetical case. If you don’t think it’s right for a black man to get a more severe sentence for killing a white man, your complaint would seem to be with hate crime laws, not me.
I don’t really understand your final question. Do you know of black men who have been charged with hate crimes for killing other black men? If so, I assume a reason like homophobia applies.
Myca, I understand what you believe, and if you wish to protect whites from blacks or blacks from whites, hate crimes would appear to make sense, but I think you should protect people from people.
“I realize that you don’t think there’s much of a difference between the ‘rock through the window with ‘die Jews die” scenario and the ‘rock through the window because teenagers were drunk and stupid’ scenario, but the rest of us see a difference.”
And you realize incorrectly. I’ve said repeatedly that I think racism is reprehensible. What you don’t seem to realize is that I do not think the law is the best way to address every evil in the world. The law is fairest when it treats everyone the same.
In the case of the family targeted by a racist vandal, the vandalism should be addressed by the law. The rest of the problem should be addressed by the community: people should go to the family and say, “We’re doing all we can to find the vandal, and when we find him or her, he or she will be charged, because you are one of us, a cherished member of our community, with every right that any of us has.”
And bringing the family some food would also be a good idea.
And setting a neighborhood watch to catch the vandal would be good.
And trying to get psychiatric help for the vandal would also be good, because if you just say he or she is a racist and prison is the answer, prison may make that person a more committed racist.
I’m at message #102 now. Really, it’s time to bow out. So unless a question raises a radically new aspect of this question, I’ll do my part to let this thread sleep now.
The question remains: What penalty do you think is appropriate?
$50 fine for a broken window?
Yeah, that’s probably going to stop them, isn’t it?
—Myca
And yeah, a community response would be great . . . but there’s a reason that it’s news when a community does that.
And it’s not because it’s common.
—Myca
Myca, I believe judges should be able to judge—that’s part of what I despise about “three strikes” legislation. So I’m not going to offer an arbitrary penalty for a hypothetical crime. The judge should look at the cost of fixing what was broken, at whether the vandal is a repeat offender, at whether prison or probation or therapy would seem to be the best solution, etc. (I’m big on therapy for crimes like vandalism.)
And if the community doesn’t rally to support you, I don’t care what the law does. If the community is against you, you get to decide whether to tough it out or leave. If you tough it out, I don’t think “hate crime” laws will help you, and they may make people even more angry at you.
Back in the early ’60s, my father pointed out to me that people in the US have a long list of legal rights that sound great, and countries like Canada didn’t have any explicitly granted legal rights, yet Canadians did okay, and rights in the US were being very selectively applied. And ever since then, I’ve believed that societies matter much more than laws.
But that’s the point, isn’t it? The same crime can receive greater or lesser penalties depending on various externalities.
I thought it was all about ‘the same crime treated the same”.
Why, my goodness, you’re not in favor of that at all!
You did an interesting thing here. It’s called a false choice fallacy.
Either the community ‘rallies around you’, or they’re ‘against you’. There’s no such thing as ‘mostly indifferent and concerned with themselves, and sure, they oppose harassment, but not enough to have a goddamn neighborhood bake sale’, which seems to be the most common state of things.
—Myca
Myca, we fundamentally disagree about the nature of the considerations that should be allowed to go into judging cases.
I was sloppy in the way I expressed the bit about community support. I completely agree that there’s a wide range of ways a community may respond when one of its members is under attack. I didn’t mean to ignore the middle of the spectrum when I pointed to the best and worst cases. Sorry about that bit of confusion.
So you do not believe that a judge should be allowed to assess a harsher penalty against the skinhead in the previous example?
—Myca
The problem with omitting the middle is that that’s precisely where hate crimes legislation is important.
Yes, you’re right that in a super-strong community, they’re unnecessary, and in a super-hostile community they’re no good anyway . . . but the vast majority of US communities, I believe fall in the middle, and the middle is where the law makes a difference.
And to have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize a Jewish family is part of how you make them a part of the community.
—Myca
Oh, man, Myca, we’re hitting 110! I got to bail soon!
When you ask “So you do not believe that a judge should be allowed to assess a harsher penalty against the skinhead in the previous example?” are you referring to message #100?
If so, first I have to note that not all skinheads are racist or violent. As for what I mean by acceptable legal considerations in that case: Was the vandal an adult? Then a harsher penalty may be appropriate. Was the vandal legally sane? Then ditto. Was the vandalism premeditated rather than impulsive or accidental? Then ditto.
But the judge should not be allowed to judge the vandal more harshly for being racist. Being a racist is one of the ugly freedoms of life in a free society.
“And to have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize a Jewish family is part of how you make them a part of the community.”
I would rather have the law act as if it’s unacceptable to terrorize any family. That’s how I would make every family a part of my community. If one family is being terrorized by a neighbor who hates everyone and another is being terrorized by a neighbor who’s a racist, don’t you want to say that neither will be tolerated and both are wrong? Why should you take one form of terrorism less seriously than the other?
We’re going in circles. Mostly because you’re playing childish little games.
Do you believe that anyone here has proposed penalizing anyone for ‘being racist” rather than ‘committing a crime with the goal of victimizing a specific group”?
Either say yes or no.
If the answer is yes, provide evidence.
If the answer is no, stop claiming things that aren’t true.
This is an ongoing pattern with you, and I’m not the only one who’s pointed it out. It’s time for you to stop now.
—Myca
Myca, do you dispute the definition that I quoted @96 from A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes by the Bureau of Justice Assistance? Here are the crucial words: “manifest evidence of prejudice.” I think that’s the heart of what’s wrong with the theory of hate crimes. The “manifest evidence” is already a crime. Making the prejudice “manifest” in an illegal way is already a crime in every case. The prejudice can be based on “race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,” but what makes it a crime is making the prejudice manifest, or, in other words, committing a crime that comes out of prejudice.
That definition is your “provable evidence.”
Now, there are a lot of state-level hate crime laws, so I hope you’ll forgive me for sticking to this one.
What’s going on here is you see a simple problem: crimes that grow out of prejudice. So your solution is to add penalties to crimes that grow out of prejudice.
But that’s not the problem. The problem is that the law was not being enforced equally. The solution is to enforce it equally.
And I really do think we should stop discussing this now. When one person starts calling another one childish, at least one person in the discussion is being childish.
Will, the definition you posted doesn’t, even for a minute, penalize someone for “being racist.”
You keep claiming that’s true because it’s a mighty convenient lie to hang your argument on, that hate crime legislation is equivalent to thought crimes, that it puts you in jail for having opinions, etc, etc, etc.
Even in summarizing the definition, you said it yourself. It doesn’t outlaw ‘being racist’, or even add penalties for ‘being racist,’ what it does is:
In other words, I can be racist all day long, and I won’t be penalized a single dollar. I can even commit crimes, and I won’t be penalized extra for being racist. It’s when my crime grows from my racism . . . when my crime does the extra damage that such crimes do . . . that I will be penalized extra.
There’s no way you do not understand this. I am having a hard time concluding anything other than that your deceptions as to the facts around hate crime legislation are deliberate.
—Myca
By the by, it’s precisely this logic that the Supreme Court followed when they unanimously ruled hate crime legislation constitutional in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, saying that they saw no problem with enhancing punishment for hate crimes because:
Bolding mine.
—Myca
Myca, you’ve gone from accusations of childishness to accusations of lies. I really shouldn’t reply, but here, I hope, is my last attempt. You say, “It’s when my crime grows from my racism . . . when my crime does the extra damage that such crimes do . . . that I will be penalized extra.”
Exactly right. You are penalized for committing a crime that grows from racism. The racism is the thought. That’s why a hate crime is both an actual crime (murder, assault, trespassing, vandalism, or whatever) plus a thought crime.
And, yes, the Supreme Court voted unanimously in support of hate crimes. The Supreme Court is inherently a conservative capitalist group. It gave us the Dred Scott decision. I’m not going to let my idea of what’s right be decided by people like Scalia and Thomas.
I think we’re far past the point where we should’ve stopped. I wish you well, and I’ll bow out of this now. Until the next discussion–
Will
Ah, I see. I guess I didn’t understand before. It’s like how when I’m penalized for committing a crime that grows out of a desire to kill someone it’s murder, but if I just desired to hurt him it’s manslaughter.
Because the desire to kill is a thought!
That’s why murder is a thoughtcrime, right? I understand now.
I guess my only question is: Would you call thoughtcrimes like murder doubleplus ungood, or just ungood?
—Myca
Oh, Myca, I beg you, let’s just agree to disagree, because we really seem to have come full circle. But I’ll try yet again, using your latest example:
Ah, I see. I guess I didn’t understand before. It’s like how when I’m penalized for committing a crime that grows out of a desire to kill someone it’s murder, but if I just desired to hurt him it’s manslaughter.
Because the desire to kill is a thought!
That’s why murder is a thoughtcrime, right? I understand now.
Desiring to kill someone is and should be legal. Trying to kill someone is not and should not be legal. It’s only when you decide to act upon your desire that the law should get involved, and then the law should focus on how you decide to act, not why. If I’m a legally sane adult and I plan your murder and I carry it out, I should be charged with murder. Whether I want you dead because you’re a political rival or a troublesome lover or someone whose wealth I hope to acquire or someone whose “race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” I hate shouldn’t matter in a court of law. Address the deed, not the thought behind the deed.
And I thought my previous farewell was good. Sorry to blow it now.
Agree to disagree?
Will
Agreed.
Agreed
I’m not sure why you make this distinction, and I think that it is a false one.
Saying ‘I wanted to kill him, so I beat him badly’ puts your desire for your victim’s death as the ‘why,’ and a bad beating as the ‘how.’ The ‘why is essential here. Without taking the ‘why’ into account, this is manslaughter.
“Why’d you brain him with a crowbar?”
A) “He had a gun and was threatening me.”
B) “We were just playing around, and I slipped.”
c) “I wanted that SOB dead.”
Three different situations, three different reasons, and likely three different criminal penalties.
Reasons matter.
The point is that in many cases without examining your thoughts, we don’t know whether you intended to kill me, or whether it was an accident.
It doesn’t require ‘planning’ either. Screaming “I’m going to kill you” as you pummel me is just as admissible as a typewritten manuscript, “How I will Kill Myca.” It’s because planning isn’t the point, the state of mind of the accused is the point, and both of these can help indicate that.
That is, help indicate the thoughts of the accused. The thoughts.
I mean, really, your position seems to be that it’s okay to take everything into account except the prejudice of the accused. You’re not against considering thoughts, just these specific ones.
And that’s part of what bothers me about the whole argument. I have been snarky towards you of late, and it’s because I feel you’ve been arguing in bad faith, and refusing to directly address criticisms of your position.
—Myca
Saying ‘I wanted to kill him, so I beat him badly’ puts your desire for your victim’s death as the ‘why,’ and a bad beating as the ‘how.’ the ‘why is essential here. Without taking the ‘why’ into account, this is manslaughter.
Uh, no. That sounds like attempted murder. Whether it’s premeditated isn’t clear from your context. When did you decide you were going to try to beat this guy to death? A day earlier would clearly mean it was premeditated. Right around the time you started beating on him would mean it was a crime of passion–which could result in a charge of voluntary manslaughter. The court does allow for a bit deal-making between the defense and the D.A.
I mean, really, your position seems to be that it’s okay to take everything into account except the prejudice of the accused. You’re not against considering thoughts, just these specific ones.
I’m against considering those thoughts and all other thoughts behind a crime. You may hate a former lover. That shouldn’t affect your sentence. You may want to steal a stamp collection from someone you’ve never met. That shouldn’t affect your sentence either.
I think you’re confusing “thoughts” with “intent.” The intent to commit a crime has, I think, always been a factor in deciding a criminal case. The thought behind the intent has only been a factor in determining legal sanity; if the thought is judged to be sane, the person may be tried. Now, you could argue that crimes committed out of prejudice indicate insanity, and I would probably be comfortable with that, because people who commit crimes out of prejudice clearly need psychiatric help. But “hate crime” laws are applied to people who are considered legally sane. That’s why I see a “hate crime” as an actual crime plus a thought crime.
Agree to disagree now?
Right around the time you started beating on him would mean it was a crime of passion.
Nope. Your own personal interpretation of what constitutes a crime of passion does not matter. What matters is the law’s interpretation. Commonwealth v. Earnest : “Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, where within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate, and premeditated.”
In criminal law re: unlawful killings, the different degrees (1st, 2nd, etc.) exist because sometimes the defendant is more culpable than others. Culpability is found, in part, by intent (i.e., motive / mental state / thoughts – in other words, by the aforementioned mens rea) as evidenced by actions. This mental state concept has been refined through much case law.
My point is that by adding a hate crime law to an objective crime, you’re adding to the penalty based on your interpretation of the motive for the crime.
Please explain, then, how a court distinguishes between 1st degree vs. 2nd degree murder and the concurrent sentences. After all, the victim is just as dead as if s/he fell off the top of the Sears Tower.
Big hint: Motive / intent / mental state / thoughts / mens rea is exactly how such determinations are made (among other considerations). These are discovered in examining all the evidence: Did the defendant stab the woman with short hair and no make-up, wearing a flannel shirt and carpenter jeans, once or 20 times? Where on her person? Did the defendant abscond with any of that victim’s personal property such as a wallet, or was nothing taken? Were any of the wounds inflicted after the victim died? Is there additional evidence on the victim’s body such as the word “dyke” carved into her skin? Such evidence in the aggregate clearly shows the defendant’s intent.
Intent already equals thought in the eyes of the law. Sentencing will vary depending on how such aggregated evidence is seen by the court – by the judge and by the jury (odd, this conversation has overlooked juries).
Under hate crimes laws, the carving of “dyke” into the victim’s skin is a message not to the victim, who may or may not actually be a lesbian, but to the entire community of lesbians. Because a message of, “Watch out dykes or I’ll carve you up” is the defendant’s clear intent as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding and causing the victim’s death, what could maybe have been a self-defense killing under different facts (“The victim was swinging at me with a baseball bat! I had to defend myself so I slashed at her twice!”) might move to felony murder (an unlawful killing occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony – armed robbery of the victim’s wallet, for example) or to a hate crime.
The same types of rules apply to battery (different from assault, which is the victim’s fear of imminent unwelcome contact, not the actual contact which is necessary for the charge of battery). The defendant’s thoughts (motive / intent) are evidenced by the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant’s behavior therein.
In other words, subjective intent is frequently considered. Rarely rarely rarely does criminal law examine only the objective crime.
These are the facts of criminal law: in some situations, the law already attempts to determine what a defendant was thinking when planning / engaging in specific criminal activities. With hate crimes laws, what we are seeing is that a defendant’s motives for acting can extend far far beyond her/his victim to reach a larger community. With this recognition, the law is moving into a significantly more sophisticated understanding of human behavior. Justice is being served by punishing the defendant more harshly in a hate crime situation, just as justice is being served by punishing the 1st degree unlawful killer far more harshly than the manslaughter unlawful killer.
I suggest you take a criminal law course for a deeper and broader understanding of the legal concepts, definitions, and rules at issue.
[edited for wording]
Bonnie, thanks for clarifying that bit about the length of time that goes into premeditation. I’m not a lawyer, and this discussion has been bouncing between what we think the law currently is and what we think the law should be, so it’s been sloppy.
But as for mens rea, you appear to answer the question yourself: “evidence in the aggregate clearly shows the defendant’s intent.” In the case you offer, the intent is to murder; it’s not self-defense. Adding a hate crime consideration means that the accused person’s prejudice is being added to the intent to murder. Remember the definition from the Hate Crimes Statistics Act: ““crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.”
As for your example of carving a word into a body, that rules out self-defense right there. Using the carved word as evidence of the intent to murder is perfectly appropriate. It’s exactly as if “adulterer” or “scab” had been carved into a victim’s flesh. But using that to say that an additional sentence should be added because, in this case, the victim is a lesbian is wrong. The victim is a person, and the law should view her as a person, just like any other.
Here’s where your reasoning terrifies me: “the law is moving into a more sophisticated understanding of human behavior.” The “more sophisticated understanding” is based on taking into consideration the beliefs of the perpetrator, and that’s the definition of a thought crime. Now, you may wish to defend the state’s right to judge a person’s belief, but I think the state’s intrusiveness has to have limits. Those limits include an adult citizen’s skin (no one should be allowed to tell you what happens inside your body) and an adult citizen’s mind (no one should be allowed to tell you what to think). The state should only have clearly defined powers to judge what you do.
I also find this worrisome: “Justice is being served by punishing the defendant more harshly.” Is there any evidence that hate crime laws are effective ways to deter crime? Or is your definition of justice purely about punishment?
Oh, for God’s sake: it’s clear that no reasoning will ever reach these people. Can’t we just stop playing into their need to monopolise attention and do some real discussion on this issue?
There are some valid points that could be discussed (for example, Amp’s reservations about hate crime legislation which he expressed earlier). It would be nice to see some discussion of things like that, rather than the endless wheel-spinning that Will has manipulated us into doing.
Crys T Writes:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Oh, for God’s sake: it’s clear that no reasoning will ever reach these people. Can’t we just stop playing into their need to monopolise attention and do some real discussion on this issue?
There are some valid points that could be discussed (for example, Amp’s reservations about hate crime legislation which he expressed earlier). It would be nice to see some discussion of things like that, rather than the endless wheel-spinning that Will has manipulated us into doing.
Julie Z: I’m afraid that Will is just another expert at creating circular arguments. I am a four year member of the AOL “Gay Marriage Debate” comments board, and I have seen enough “wheel spinners,” as you put it, to know that some of them are experts at it. They are always good at ignoring the points made by others while they cook up non sequiturs that are nonsensical and illogical. Of course that type of posting members are all on my ignore list, because they are only interested in winning the debate by wearing people down to the point that they decide to ignore them, and of course to them, that means some kind of victory.
Crys T and Julie, thank you! I’ll happily leave so you can work on Amp. At some fundamental level, people either believe hate crime legislation is a useful way to address inequality or it’s not, so I should unsubscribe. But when I click “Manage your subscriptions,” I get “You may not access this page without a valid key.” Can anyone help me go away?
crrys&julie,
I agree that arguing with will is pointless. Now why don’t you make one of those more interesting points rather than just complain?
I’ll toss out a new one:
We all know that prejudice can be held by just about anyone–whites against blacks, blacks against whites, Jews against Christians and Christians against Jews; rich against poor and poor against rich.
Now, most of the time we sort of ignore the minority>majority issue: it may be true that there are some blacks who are prejudiced against whites, and who discriminate as a result, but in the world it doesn’t really have much effect so it’s not worth the focus. (ergo the “power requirement” included in the definition of racism.)
But crime is different, yes? We care about equal enforcement of the criminal laws for both majority AND minority offenders. (which is one of the reasons that over-enforcement against many minorities is so appalling, but I digress.) We may be willing to tolerate unequal discrimination by the various sides, but we’re not willing to tolerate unequal criminal action.
Anyway: do you expect that a population-proportionate sample of minorities (whether racial or otherwise) will be getting convicted of hate crimes? Or do you think that there will be proportionately more people convicted from the majority groups? And if you’re imagining that most of the people convicted (proportionately) will be white, or rich, Christian, etc.–what’s the basis for that belief?
will, there’s nobody standing over you with a gun forcing you to post. If you want to stop talking, stop talking instead of insisting you HAVE to until you get the last word in.
Wiil,
You missed the part where I said that with changing the facts slightly, the charges will be different:
. . . what could maybe have been a self-defense killing under different facts (”The victim was swinging at me with a baseball bat! I had to defend myself so I slashed at her twice!”) might move to felony murder (an unlawful killing occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony – armed robbery of the victim’s wallet, for example) or to a hate crime.
Also, reword this: Is there any evidence that hate crime laws are effective ways to deter crime?
to this: Is there any evidence that 1st degree v. 2nd degree v. manslaughter laws are effective ways to deter unlawful killings?
and you will understand [finally? we hope] that some of justice is punishment.
That’s not my definition. That’s the law’s definition.
Good point, Bonnie.
Will, I apologize, but I can’t find any way of manually unsubscribing you, and for the immediate future I just don’t have a lot of time to spend trying to research what’s wrong with the plug-in. (I’m super-loaded with inflexible deadlines in the meatworld right now). Again, I apologize.
Sailorman wrote:
I have no idea. Even if the laws were applied with complete fairness, it might still not result in “a population-proportionate sample of minorities getting convicted of hate crimes,” because there’s no reason to assume that those who commit hate crimes will be population-proportionate.
My guess is that of the group who commits hate crimes (whatever that group’s proportions happen to be), a disproportionate number of poor people, racial minorities and men from that group will be convicted and punished. I guess this not because of anything about hate crime laws in particular, but because that’s true of US law in general.
Amp, no worries. It’ll be a good exercise in willpower for me. Good luck with the deadlines!
Mythago, I tend to answer points that are directed at me. As this shows. Seems rude not to. I’m especially weak when I’m asked questions. The easiest way to get me to go away is to ignore me, or to suggest something like “Agree to disagree now?”
Bonnie, thanks for follow-up!
Sailorman, I won’t be participating in the discussion, but remember that FBI link I found back around #45? I think it said 27% of the people convicted of hate crimes are black. If you don’t assume class is a factor, that’s shockingly disproportionate, since the US’s black population is around 10%. So, if you only look at race, hate crime laws hurt blacks disproportionately.
See y’all in the next thread!
Will
“there’s no reason to assume that those who commit hate crimes will be population-proportionate.”
Aha & oho: this is of course a very important point. Of course, we’ll make sure we qualify it by saying that yes, of course a member/some members of Minority Group A might commit a hate crime against a member/some members of Minority Group B. Yes, that might well happen. However, IMO, given the very nature of hate crimes (eg maintaining the status quo by spreading terror amongst minority/minoritised groups), I’m guessing it’s likely that most hate crimes are committed by majority group members. And again, to qualify: I said “most” not “all.”
“My guess is that of the group who commits hate crimes (whatever that group’s proportions happen to be), a disproportionate number of poor people, racial minorities and men from that group will be convicted and punished.”
Again, I agree, and that is a very real problem. However, I don’t believe that this is a reason to reject or be dubious of hate crimes legislation as it’s something that’s true across the board for criminal convictions (well, excepting crimes that you pretty much have to be rich to commit, I guess), not something unique to society’s view of hate crimes per se. The solution to that happening is to bring about system-wide change.
Sailorman, coming in late here but obviously the same biases that already exist in the criminal justice system are not going to go away when we talk about hate-crime convictions. I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws.
I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws
Because hate-crime laws give more power to the putatively evil system. Example: if a local justice system is thoroughly doused in racism and racists, then giving the system more power to prosecute racists is not likely to end up with a reduction of racism.
I’m not entirely sure why that’s an argument against hate-crime laws.
Neither am I. I just thought it was an interesting topic to bring up.
The main reason we need hate crime law is for there to be a deterrent or a discouragement of a particular type of crime. Of course heterosexuals don’t feel a need for such a law in that they don’t have to worry about being beaten and killed for being a heterosexual. If any heterosexual were to be mistaken for a homosexual and were themselves beaten up for being gay, his/her outlook on whether the GLBT community needs a law that would discourage such criminal action would change to being in favor of such a law. A type of crime that any group of people is more susceptible to does indeed need special provisions made into law. If there is a danger such as the bigoted hate that exists in society toward GLBT people, or any race, there should be a deterrent in law that makes the perpetrator of any violence for the sake of hate think twice before committing the hate crime. Why would anyone not want a law that would discourage a certain type of crime toward a certain type of people?
I seem to still be subscribed to this thread, so:
Julie, there are laws against people being beaten and laws against people being murdered. Why separate the different kinds of people and have different penalties for harming each?
I would have great sympathy for hate crime laws if there was any evidence that they worked to deter hateful assaults. But the people who commit those crimes already know that beating and killing people is illegal.
will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda. (I’ve asked this before, and if I recall correctly we got sidetracked.)
Your position is one I can potentially respect, if disagree with – but only if it’s consistent.
Someone who murders should be charged with murder, regardless of the motive. Punish the crime, not the thought.
holy thread resurrection batman!
And lots of laws have different punishments depending on the reasons they occurred. Crimes of passion are considered less serious than cold, calculated murders. So in that vein, it only makes sense that harming someone for hatred for being something they didn’t choose to be can be considered a more severe form of a crime.
Either way, I tend to ignore the “hate crime” complaining because most of it comes not from libertarians but from conservatives who’ve been wiping their asses with the constitution for the better part of a decade.
Total agreement that conservatives make laws at whim: state’s rights only matter when that’ll get them what they want.
But it’s odd that you should bring up crimes of passion being less serious, because an argument could be made that hate crimes are often crimes of passion.
And also odd that you should think hurting someone for something they chose to be is less deserving of punishment than hurting them for something they did not choose. The rules should be simple: Humans are humans. Don’t hurt them.
Sneaking away from the discussion now….
will, all right, but why is it so hard to say “Yes” or “No”? I assume you’re saying “Yes”, but there’s an off chance that you’re redefining “murder” on an ad hoc basis – as in, hate crime murder is ‘just murder’ but terrorist murder is more than ‘just murder’. Again, I doubt you’re doing this, but I want to make sure. Let me repeat the question:
“will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda.”
Y-E-S or N-O
In my experience, when someone gives you two choices, you want the third one. Maybe that’s part of the reason I want laws to be as simple as possible—and judges to have discretion in interpreting them.
If the only bad thing someone has done is kill someone, the charge should be about killing someone. What you think about Al Qaida is your business.
Will, the thing you don’t seem to want to acknowledge is the fact that heterosexuals don’t have to worry about being attacked by GLBT people, it’s the other way around. Therefore we need a special deterrent for that specific crime that we are more prone to be affected by. If “the thought” is to attack someone because of what their sexual orientation is, then the hate thought put into action should be discouraged by law. If a person knows they would be doing a hate crime that carries extra punishment they will be less prone to do it. Once again, discouragement is better than no discouragement at all. If a criminal attacks a GLBT person for the common reasons people are attacked, such as robbery, rape, or murder for any other general reason the hate crime punishment would not be added to their punishment.
Just remember, you don’t have to worry about being accosted for being heterosexual, but we have to worry about being accosted for being GLBT. We have to worry with it and you don’t. So what we need is more protection against hate crimes than you do, for you it is not a need, because you as a heterosexual can go anywhere you please without the fear of being attacked for being heterosexual, and we can’t, because there is no legal discouragement or moral indignation of it pointed at the general public. We need the extra protection especially at this time because of the wake of prejudice, bigotry, and the demonize-ing of us that is coming from the right wing. We need extra protection because of those that think they are doing “God’s work” by committing acts of violence and discrimination against us because of what they see and hear from bigoted people that portray us as sinners, deviates, and destroyers of society.
There is no justification for your trying to say that there is no difference in the crime of murder when it comes to hate, because there is a difference, and the difference is we as GLBT people have to worry about hate crime toward our sexual orientations and you don’t. You are protected from the type of violence that commonly occurs just as we all are, but we are not protected by the “uncommon to heterosexuals type of violence” that only occurs to us, not you. So what does that mean? It means that we not only might suffer from the type of violence that may happen to people like yourself in general but also for the type of violence that you never have to even think about nor even make allowances for.
If we seem to get infuriated with you it is because you have no empathy for our special circumstances. You think that we should be satisfied with the law as it is when you do not suffer from the special circumstances of what we in the GLBT community suffer from.
Lastly, anyone can hate us all they want and they have the right to think anything they want, but this law concerns itself with what the reasons were for a crime of violence, not a mere thought by itself. If the reason for a violent crime is hate, then the crime is a hate crime which is worse than common crime for common reasons and should be punished in accordance to how much worse it is because of how much more of a problem it is for GLBT people than it is for heterosexuals of any race. The bill is for protection against “violence for the sake of hate,” not just the thought of hate itself because no thought is a crime, for hate itself can’t hurt anyone unless it is put into action (violence). If there was no special kind of hate in this country behind the violence perpetrated against GLBT people, which is regrettable in a secular country that is supposed to be a progressive and tolerant, then there would be no need for a special law to protect the GLBT community, but as we have seen, that is not the case. Violent bigots are a special problem for which we need special laws.
Julie,
Is there any evidence that “special deterrence” works?
I’ve never said the reasoning behind hate crimes is not different. Carried to its logical extreme, the reason for every crime is different, because people are not identical. I’m saying the deed is the same: a human being has been hurt. Bigots separate human beings into different categories and think they should be treated differently. The law should treat us all the same.
Since when did one need to provide proof that a certain punishment “works” in order to enact it? I don’t think it would be a bad idea to start doing so, but if we do so then we should do so across the board, and not only apply it to hate crime punishments.
The difference between assaulting someone because they’re gay and assaulting them for any other reason, is that the first is not just a crime against the person being assaulted. It is also a threat to everyone else who is gay: it causes them to (rationally) fear that they too will be beat up, and it forces them to unduly curtail their activities in order to stay safe. It causes “a chilling effect”, if you will. For the extra crime of causing this chilling effect, we add an extra punishment.
No such chilling effect exists for people who aren’t members of traditionally persecuted groups. There might exist somebody, somewhere who wants to beat you up because you’re short, or you have red hair, or you are left handed, but except in special circumstances it’s not going to cause you to curtail your everyday activities.
Lastly, I understand your desire to have the law treat everybody who does a given deed the same, regardless of their motivations. I would have a lot more sympathy for it if you started your campaign somewhere else (say, with eliminating the sentence enhancements for premeditation). Once you’ve written a screed against that, I’ll find it much easier to believe that you are sincere. (I still won’t agree with you, though.)
Bjartmarr, good on you for cutting to the chase! Yes, fans of the death penalty and drug prohibition don’t care whether those solutions are effective. I oppose them, too. I’m a pragmatist: if a law is effective, I’ll have more respect for it than if it’s not.
As for the chilling effect, when I hear someone is attacking people who are gay, I’m chilled, partly for others: friends of mine may be hurt. And partly for me: I may be hurt. Bigots are not famously effective: there are cases of misdirected hate crimes, where someone who was thought to be gay or Arabic wasn’t. Having violent people around is not good for society, no matter who those people are targeting at a particular moment.
Premeditation is different. Hate crimes focus on the victim: who was hurt? Premeditation focuses on the crime: was this a spur of the moment thing, or was it planned?
Will, yes, there are some laws that don’t work, and are bad laws to begin with, like the death penalty and prohibitions, but with those laws innocent people are hurt.
Hate crimes isn’t about “who” was hurt, it’s about “why’ they were hurt and what affect the hate crime has on an entire community.
Many violent bigots think they have permission by a part of society to bring violence to GLBT people. They think it is more condoned by a portion of their societal environment and that is why there needs to be a special note hung on their door that reinforces the message that violent hate crimes will not be condoned by society….Period. If a hate crime law shows extra favor toward extra punishment for a violent bigot, so be it, at least the discouragement is there so as to protect innocent citizens, not hurt them.
In the case of the death penalty, I agree, it doesn’t work, the law doesn’t give any extra protection from murder because there is no real difference between incarceration and death in the minds of many criminals, in fact, incarceration for life is worse than death to many of them. The other reason the law is bad is that there is a chance that too many innocent people will be put to death, which makes the law super redundant. If the intent of a crime is specialized then the punishment should also be specialized and the only right way to do that is simply more time in prison. If a murderer has a life sentence for murdering a gay man, then adding more years to a sentence for the special circumstance of it being a hate crime would be an extra promise to minorities that the murderer will never see the light of day and will never be paroled and let out into society to only attack and kill another GLBT person that the criminal singles out from general society.
The drug prohibition, my pet peeve, is the most redundant law ever created by humans since the first foolish prohibition against alcohol. It didn’t work with alcohol drug which makes the drug war nothing but defiant stupidity in the face of history that has proved out through the test of time that prohibitions never work.
These things in law that you bring up have been proved to not work, but extra punishment for extra circumstances when it comes to extra jail time HAS been proved to work. Just like a criminal knows that he will face a lot more time if he commits a crime with a gun than without one, the law serves as a deterrent. Even if hate crime laws didn’t work for the GLBT community the laws can’t hurt innocent citizens like unconstitutional prohibitions and the death penalty does. All the hate crime law would do is serve as a deterrent and a help. Is that too much to ask for? If it made things safer for GLBT people in any way without affecting innocent people, then what the heck is wrong with that?
We make laws that protect certain species of animals, all the time, that are threatened by extinction because of a set of special circumstances, (hunted and killed more than others just like the GLBT community is) so why are human beings that suffer from special circumstances less of a concern or any less deserving of extra protection on the grounds of what special circumstances there are that definitely exist for GLBT citizens?
You say that you like things to be simple in law, but this is not a simple world, and comfortable simplicity may be comfortable for you, but certainly not for the GLBT community, because, for us, it’s just not that simple.
I’m always glad to hear that someone else opposes the DP and prohibition, but I reiterate my question: why do you demand that hate crime legislation “work”, but not apply such a test across the board? Or, to put it another way, why don’t you require proponents of incarceration for bank robbery have to prove that incarceration “works” before enacting such penalties? Why the special requirement that proponents of a penalty prove that it “works”? It’s easy for you to demand that test for penalties that you are opposed to, such as DP or prohibition; the real test of your conviction lies in whether it applies when it is inconvenient, such as when you want to throw someone in jail for robbing a bank. Because you don’t demand that lawmakers prove that incarceration “works” for bank robbery, I have a hard time believing that your “does it work?” philosophy is sincere.
This is why good hate crime legislation penalizes those who target people on their percieved membership in a protected group.
(I know I said that people who weren’t gay wouldn’t feel such a chilling effect above. It would have been more accurate to say that “people who weren’t percieved as gay wouldn’t feel such an effect.” Sorry, my bad, but I did it for brevity.)
But since you agree that this chilling effect exists, I don’t see why you don’t want to punish it.
Nope. Hate crimes focus on the motivation. See here.
(I know that’s California code, but it’s all I feel like looking up at the moment.) In particular: “”Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:” (emphasis mine). They’re looking at the motive here, not the victim.
If someone is beaten up because they’re short, hate crime penalties do not apply, whether they’re gay or not. If they’re beaten up because the attacker thinks they’re gay, then hate crime penalties apply, whether they’re gay or not. The sexual identity of the victim is irrelevant.
I understand that you oppose different penalties based on who the victim is, but that’s not what’s going on here.
If a law doesn’t work, it’s an expensive waste of time for the legal system.
Bank robbers get arrested for robbing banks. Murderers get arrested for murder. People who assault people get arrested for assaulting people. These are all about deeds, and that’s how it should be.
We’ve had hate crime laws for, what, twenty years now? There should be evidence they’re effective. Instead, we find prosecutors ignoring them and focusing on the crime (see the recent cases with the white couple who were tortured and murdered, and the black woman who was tortured).
I’m a little suspicious of the idea that things with “chilling consequences” should be punished. A lot of free speech has chilling consequences to someone. Focus on the deeds.
And motivation is based on the identity of the intended victim.
All people are equal. Treat them that way.
Sorry to run off, but I really should go now.
This is a lie.
It’s a lie because of what Bjartmarr posted here:
In other words, it’s entirely motivation.
Please acknowledge this or offer some kind of evidence to the contrary.
Clear, black and white, no weasel-words, evidence.
—Myca
Myca, you have an interesting definition of “lie.”
If the motivation is to hurt someone because of the group they belong to, the motivation is defined by the target. It’s not the simple desire to hurt someone. It’s the desire to hurt someone of a particular group. A hate crime has to be aimed at someone who is of a different religion, “race”, sexual orientation, etc. Without an intended victim of a particular group, there’s no hate crime. Hurting someone who’s not in the group the hate criminal thought doesn’t change that. The point is the intended victim. That’s why the two cases I just mentioned weren’t prosecuted as hate crimes; the prosecutors decided that trying to prove a “hate” motive would be difficult.
And, really, you also have an interesting definition of “weasel-words.” Just saying.
Oh, to be sure. But you’re still avoiding my question. Since this is the third time I’ve asked it, I’ll put it in bold so you can see it better: Why do you insist that proponents prove that hate-crime punishments “work”, but fail to insist that proponents prove that bank-robbing punishments “work”?
If you want to spend some time thinking about this question and give an actual answer, I’ll consider responding to the rest of your points. As it is, though, it doesn’t seem like you’re listening. I’m not big on talking to brick walls, so I’ll stop here.
No, it’s pretty much the standard one.
As long as you claim that these laws threat different victims unequally, I will continue to point out that this is a fabrication that you are utterly unable to back up with evidence.
—Myca
Man, there’s nothing like saying I’m avoiding a question to make me come back.
We know that if you made bank robbing legal, more people would rob banks. I sure would.
But beating people and killing people is already illegal. It should stay illegal. The people who are deterred by its illegality are already deterred by its illegality; making something extra illegal because you’re beating or killing particular people does not seem to have an extra effect.
Myca, you’re making up definitions, which gets kind of silly. To lie, I have to actually, you know, not tell the truth, and that’s really boring. I’m saying what I believe. I may be wrong, but I still believe it.
And if you really think you can have a hate crime without considering the intended victim, okay.
Will: Myca, you have an interesting definition of “lie.”
Actually, there is a difference between the word “lie’ and the word “weasel.”
A “weasel” is when one uses cherry picked facts in order to mislead.
Julie, so you know of studies that say hate crime laws are effective? I would be very grateful for a link.
Bjartmarr
Further applying the above reasoning (and demonstrating a flaw in the second paragraph above): Should a person mugging and assaulting joggers be convicted of a hate crime if other joggers become fearful and either change jogging parks, or quit jogging altogether? Certainly a rash of jogger muggings could have a real “chilling effect” on other joggers could it not?
This is really exasperating. Name me something that is defined as hate crime where the “hate” at stake is not something connected to the past and/or present systemic, systematic and insitutionalized, legally enshrined/expressed/enacted oppression of the group of people the notion of a hate crime is supposed to protect; where, in fact, that institutionalized, systemic and systematic hatred actually made it okay to, for example, beat someone up or even kill her or him for being lesbian or gay, or Black, or Jewish. The “hate” in hate crime is not about the fact that I might, for entirely personaly reasons, despise joggers; the “hate” in hate crime is about the ways in which society/culture has been organized to express hatred towards specific groups of people by oppressing them.
I am not making any claims that hate crimes “work,” in the sense of deterring the crimes they are used to punish. I don’t know whether they do. But I think, at the very least, if the conversation about whether they are necessary is going to be honest and productive, we need to acknowledge that there is a good deal more at stake than one person’s personal hatred of, say, bakers whose chocolate cookies are just not chocolate enough.
“In my experience, when someone gives you two choices, you want the third one. Maybe that’s part of the reason I want laws to be as simple as possible—and judges to have discretion in interpreting them.”
Hmm? Are hate crime laws good or bad? Is there a ‘third one’ about this?
Again, you’re being tellingly evasive.
“If the only bad thing someone has done is kill someone, the charge should be about killing someone. What you think about Al Qaida is your business.”
Again, this could potentially be a weasel statement, if you redefined a terrorist motivated attack by jihadists on all of America as having done more than ‘only [one] bad thing’, while the same sort of politically motivated hate crime against a particular subgroup in America is just that.
Yes or no to my earlier question. I’ll repost it again:
“will, if a terrorist killed someone, should there be any charges, or any sort of extra legal consideration, given above the beyond the act of the murder itself? Yes or no? Let’s say it was discovered that he had known connections to al-Qaeda.”
I think your unwillingness to answer this question straight up is telling me all I need to know. But that doesn’t mean I’ll let you off the hook.
@Larry:
Now that’s just stupid. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question anyways.
To answer your question, yes, in the totally ridiculously bizarre case where the intimidation such a jogger could reasonably be expected to feel approached the intimidation that a gay person could reasonably be expected to feel…then yes, then hate crime legislation would be appropriate.
Fortunately, we wouldn’t need hate crime legislation then, because worldwide injustice would disappear under the aegis of the ten billion gay police-monkeys flying out of my ass.
(Amp, if you’re reading this, could you draw a cartoon?)
OK, your turn to answer one. What kind of drugs does one need to smoke in order to think that running around a park is like being gay? And where the heck do you buy them?
Sylphhead, the “weasel” evasion from people who don’t have evidence that hate crimes laws do any good is beginning to seem like rank hypocrisy, so I’ll get blunter: You’re saying, “Two plus one. Come on, don’t weasel. Is it one or is it two? Quit evading.”
Hate crime laws are bad. People should be treated equally. If someone kills someone, sentence them for killing someone. Period. I don’t care if they’re a member of Al Quaida or the NRA or PETA. Sentence them for what they do, not what they think.
I honestly don’t know where you’re seeing weasel in that. A deed is a deed. A thought is a thought. Hate crimes confuse these things by changing the punishment based on the identity of the intended victim.
Okay, maybe you’ll say that’s weaseling. So I’ll make this as simple as I possibly can: If a member of Al Quaida murders someone, sentence them for murder.
I think I’m done now. This “weasel” and “lie” nonsense from people who can’t defend what they say they want is nonsense. And, yes, the need to defend these laws is in your court. You’re the one who wants hate crime laws, whether or not they’re effective.
I want everyone treated equally. So you can either stop weaseling, or you can explain why hate crime laws are effective and therefore should be on the books, adding time and expense to the criminal justice system.
Or you can join me in saying that a person is a person, and a murder is a murder, and an assault is an assault, and no one should be treated differently under the law.
P.S. Yes, the tone of the previous message may be affected by the fact it’s our anniversay and Emma and I shared a bottle of champagne. Don’t read it as too annoyed; I am astonishingly tolerant. But do read it is annoyed with nonsense words like “lie” and “weasel.” You do not win a discussion by saying, “I don’t care, you’re a liar and a weasel, nyah-nyah!” If all you have are opinions, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
will shetterly Writes:
October 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Julie, so you know of studies that say hate crime laws are effective? I would be very grateful for a link.
Julie Z: I would say that is a preposterous question when you know full well that it shouldn’t matter if hate laws are effective or not, because no one is hurt by the mere existence of a hate crime law and there is a good reason for a deterrent to be there if nothing more than to make an attacker think twice. There is proof that adding more time in prison for robbery with a gun than without a gun works to a certain degree and any degree is a great help. Why would you not want to see any assistance for the discouragement of a hate crime?
You are trying to establish that there is no difference in how law should applied to heterosexuals and GLBT people, but you are being oblivious to the fact that there is a difference and that difference is why GLBT people are attacked for something that heterosexuals are not attacked for. The reality exists that GLBT people are in more danger when visible and more socially susceptible to attack and crimes committed against us, therefore, we need more of a deterrent.
When I came back to this thread I saw a common theme coming from you, which is that a crime of violence is a crime of violence and that there should not be any difference in punishment for what the reason behind the crime is. But your premise is flawed in that the act of violence toward people with any other sexual orientation other than heterosexual is more frequent and no bigotry and hate exists for those that are heterosexual in that regard. Your oversimplified view on this matter has been logically and factually defeated, must you go on?
Julie, laws cost time and money. *Everyone* is hurt by ineffective laws.
We have deterrents against killing and beating people. They’re laws about murder and assault.
But since I have been logically and factually defeated without any evidence at all from you, sure, I’ll stop.
I’m uninterested in going over the mistakes you’ve repeated ad nauseum over and over again for the umpteenth time. I only have this to say. There was nothing impossible or difficult about my question – the parallels between terrorism and hate crime are obvious and have been pointed out repeatedly. If you’re against additional prosecution for the political motivation behind a crime, then you must be against hate crime and counterterrorism legislation. If you believe the legal arm needs this extra weapon, you’ll be for both, like I am. If you believe that the comparison is unfair, barbed, or backhanded, that’s only because you care about one set of victims but couldn’t care less about the other.
Nevertheless, I’m satisfied that you’ve answered in the affirmative. Why it took so long, I won’t pontificate further.
Everyone, please tone it down a couple of notches.
Sylphhead, you first asked the question in #138. I answered it in #139: “Someone who murders should be charged with murder, regardless of the motive. Punish the crime, not the thought.” I didn’t realize then that you needed a “yes” or a “no” in addition to what that clearly and unambiguously implied. Do note that there were no weasel words there, and no escape clauses. That was an absolute statement. You just seemed to assume that I loved legalism as much as you. I hadn’t realized anyone on this board would be in favor of extending the over-reach of the Bush administration, but I live and learn.
Will, “tone it back a few notches” means not saying “You just seemed to assume that I loved legalism as much as you.”
Oh, man, I can’t say, “But they started it!”
*g*
Fair enough. Sorry about that. Apologies from Myca and Sylphhead for “lies” and “weaseling” would be nice, but not necessary. Let me try again. Sylphhead wrote, “the legal arm needs this extra weapon.” I do not think the law needs any “extra” weapons. Everyone should be treated equally.
Everyone is treated equally, and you have presented zero evidence to the contrary, no matter how often you are asked to provide it.
—Myca
And I use the word lie deliberately.
If you continue to make unsupported statements that we have shown (multiple times) to be false, I will continue to use the word.
There is virtue in calling something what it is.
—Myca
Myca, if I hurt someone because I want to, I will get one sentence. If I hurt someone because I think he or she is part of a group covered by hate crimes laws, I will get an additional sentence. Same deed, same degree of premeditation, yet a different sentence. That is not equality before the law.
Sometimes, the law will have trouble deciding whether to apply hate crimes. See the Megan Williams case and the Christian-Newsome case. Why should the law waste time and money trying to decide whether to pursue hate crime charges? The usual charges for hurting humans are more than sufficient to address what happened.
Yes, I hear the argument that it is worse to “send a message of terrorism” to a smaller community than to the general public, but I think that’s a distraction: sane people want violent people caught, no matter who they’re targeting and what their reasoning is. People have been killed because they were misidentified as child molesters. Should the person who intended to kill a child molester be charged with a hate crime?
As for your lying charges, you do realize that by your logic, I get to say you are a liar, because you have nothing to show that hate crime laws are effective?
Now, you may say that you simply like the idea of hate crime laws because they make you feel good, whether they’re effective or not. No one would question that. Otherwise, please offer evidence that hate crime laws are effective.
I’ve not made the claim that they’re effective. I’ve got no evidence either way.
—Myca
Myca, way back in 14: “The reason I favor hate crimes legislation, Sailorman, is that I think a hate crime does more harm to society than the same crime committed without the hate-based component.”
If you don’t know whether they’re effective or not, then how can you favor them as a solution to the problem? If you think hate crimes do more harm to society than other crimes, then it seems like you would want something effective.
If you don’t know that the remedy is effective, and you still want the remedy, then aren’t you just posing?
The question is ‘effective in what way’?
If we’re talking effective as a deterrent, then I’ve got no evidence either way, just as I have no evidence that life in prison is a more effective deterrent for murder than 50 years in prison.
If we’re talking effective at punishing greater harms more harshly, then it’s self-evidently effective, just as life in prison is a self-evidently harsher punishment then 50 years in prison.
—Myca
So, Myca, you simply want greater punishment for attacking some people than other people, and you don’t care whether that greater punishment makes anyone any safer?
He didn’t say he didn’t care, he said he didn’t know.
Certainly I care, and I would hope that the greater punishment serves as a greater deterrent, I just don’t have info one way or the other.
But if you’re attacking the concept that punishing a greater harm more harshly is proper (as you are), then you’ve got bigger fish than hate crimes legislation to fry. You can start with the entire collected criminal code of all western nations.
Let me know when you’re done.
—Myca
Will, Myca has said a dozen times over that he doesn’t consider it to be “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
I think the “lie” language is a bit strong, but I do think that you’re either stubbornly refusing to make a good-faith acknowledgment of Myca’s argument (which doesn’t mean agreeing with it), or you have a severe reading comprehension problem.
Also, I genuinely don’t understand why punishing someone for shooting a cop more than for shooting a grocer, more for shooting a grocer than for punching someone to death in a bar fight, and more for a preplanned murder than an spur of the moment murder, could not also be described as “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
Myca, you may want to evade this, but there’s a single issue in this thread: are hate crime laws effective?
Amp, I’m beginning to think this is an issue that has more to do with faith than logic. Myca keeps saying that hate crime laws aren’t a form of special treatment, but Myca cannot deny and has not denied that to have a hate crime, you have to consider the intended victim. When I point that out, Myca says nothing or repeats that it’s the motivation, even though the motivation is based on the intended victim.
I also think it’s wrong to punish someone more for killing a cop than a human. I think the idea of extra penalties are silly in every case: who says, “I think I’ll kill a cop; I’ll only get twenty years. Oh, I’ll get forty? Well, I guess I won’t kill a cop then.”
Something people seem to have trouble understanding: premeditation only means you planned to commit a crime. It has nothing to do with the intended victim; it’s only about the intent to do something illegal. It establishes that the action was neither accidental nor impulsive. Hate crimes focus on the intended victim; I believe they can be applied to impulsive or premeditated acts.
(bolding mine)
No, there’s not.
Effectiveness as a deterrent is not the only function of criminal law.
I know that you would like that to be the only thing anyone takes into account, but as I said, there is a rich tradition of punishing greater harms more harshly, whether or not the greater punishment serves as a greater deterrent.
Hate crimes exist as a consistent part of the canon of western criminal law. If you don’t like the way the entire canon works, that’s fine, but at least be consistent and apply whatever principles you’re using across the board.
—Myca
FTR, on this issue, it does seem like Will is being pretty consistent. I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t ready to throw out the western canon of law and start again.
Hell, I might want to do that, too, given my druthers. I’d sure be interested in reading what Will’s idea of an ideal legal system is.
(Do you write utopic fiction? Should I be buying some? I don’t even know what your most recent book was about, which is a horrible confession.)
*
(For the record, as I don’t have my druthers, and the rest of the canon exists, I personally believe that people who suffer from hate crimes have as much right to protection as the other people who have been protected by our inadequate canon of laws.)
Well, sure, maybe . . . but then we should also be asking how the concept of sentencing solely for deterrence applies to every other criminal law on the books.
I mean . . . hey, under this system, what punishment would we give to accidental death cases, where the point is that it’s accidental? No punishment at all? After all, keep in mind that it’s likely no law would have a deterrent effect.
Would we even bother trying pedophiles? Their crimes carry a disturbingly high recidivism rate, regardless of punishment, so there’s no point in punishing them at all, I’d guess.
Not to mention that we’d quickly enter a situation where life in prison for shoplifting is a greater deterrent than probation . . . but differing punishments seem to have no deterrent effect at all on a crime of passionate murder (purely as an example).
Our current system balances these conflicting cases, and does so imperfectly . . . but certainly better than just taking one component of the law and pretending that it’s the end-all be-all.
—Myca
Also, I think that a big part of why we’re seeing this kind of requirement (“hate crimes don’t count unless they have a deterrent effect”) when it comes to hate crime legislation and not seeing it when it comes to anything else is that it’s another case of minorities being subject to requirements and justifications that the majority never has to deal with.
It’s the whole “when did you first realize you were heterosexual” issue again, in other words.
It’s fine to punish a greater harm more when the victim is a straight white man, but when the victim is black, or gay or female, then there are a bunch of other hoops to jump through, which is typical.
—Myca
“Would we even bother trying pedophiles? Their crimes carry a disturbingly high recidivism rate”
I’m pretty sure this is one of those resilient myths that won’t die.
Ooh, damn. Am I wrong about that? It may well be just (wrong) received wisdom. Do you have numbers?
In any case, I hope you take my point, which is that there are likely to be certain crimes and criminals for whom laws have little or no deterrent effect, and if we’re basing our criminal laws entirely on deterrence, then there’s not much we can really do with them.
—Myca
Pedophiliac criminals have high recidivism rates.
Or why, since we’re talking about pedophilia, punishing someone more for groping a toddler than for groping her mother could not also be described as “greater punishment for attacking some people than other people.”
—Myca
Replying roughly in order to the comments:
Myca, you can ignore effectiveness if you want, but I sure don’t want to wander from this topic to “the entire collected criminal code of all western nations.” I’m not interested in punishment for the sake of punishment; that’s something torturers do. I’m only concerned with making people safer. We can look at seat belt laws and see that they make people safer; therefore, I support them. If you have evidence that hate crime laws make people safer, let’s see it.
Mandolin, my last explicitly political book was Chimera, a right-libertarian dystopia. Two earlier books, Elsewhere and Nevernever, are anarchistic.
Myca, do you know of any other crime in which there’s an extra sentence based on the intended victim? Off-hand, I don’t. So my objection is that no matter what anyone thinks of the existing system, within that system, hate crime laws are extra punishment based on the criminal’s thoughts rather than the criminal’s deeds.
I’ll try one last example:
Someone might read a few of my books, notice that I usually have sympathetic gay characters, and decide that I am gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
Someone else might read some of my comments, notice that I think hate crime laws are a form of thought crime laws, and decide that I am anti-gay and should die. They might plan my death, come to my door, and shoot me when I answer it. It would be premeditated murder.
In the first case, the killer would face hate crime sentencing. In the second, the killer would not. I would be just as dead. The only difference is that the sentence would be greater in the first case.
Would the additional hate crime sentence deter anyone else from a similar killing? No.
Would it cost more money for the legal system and the tax payer? Yes.
Would Emma feel any better about my death under one scenario than the other? I doubt it.
Myca, do you know of any other crime in which there’s an extra sentence based on the intended victim?
Sure. You’ve already claimed about one–killing a police officer (which you imply is not the same as ‘killing a human’). Statutory rape laws apply to the victim’s age.
Myca, true. Rulers almost always have greater penalties for harming the people who implement their rule.
I didn’t mean that I thought cops aren’t human, though–sorry about the sloppiness there. I meant that different sentences create tiers of humanity. We are all humans, whether cops or gays or Armenians or Southern Baptists. The law should not discriminate.
Sure. Child molestation carries a different penalty than the same actions with an adult.
What I am saying is that broadly across “the entire collected criminal code of all western nations,” deterrence has not ever been the solitary goal of punishment, and the litmus test you propose would invalidate not just hate crimes but such an incredibly broad spectum of our criminal code so as to require rewriting the whole damn thing.
Hate crimes are not a new or unusual concept in western law, and are, in fact, a natural extension of existing concepts.
1) Western law (as I pointed out both in comment #189 and several paragraphs ago, and as Mythago and Ampersand have pointed out extensively) already imposes different penalties depending on who your victim is.
2) Western law already penalizes criminals more harshly for a more damaging result, even when their overt action was the same.
Now, you may not like that, and you’re within your rights not to, but to attack Hate Crime Legislation as if it’s an exception to the norm rather than being precisely the kind of thing we’ve been doing all along is disingenuous.
If you think we need to rewrite all of our laws to meet your standards, say so.
If you think that we just need to look at hate crimes, then that’s pretty disturbing.
—Myca
Myca, adults and children have different legal status. I think that’s right.
I think it’s wrong to give different legal status to different kinds of adults.
Out of curiosity, what crimes do you think would be eliminated if the criteria was not making people safer? Remember that I believe in legalizing and regulating sex work and drug use.
Hate crime laws are only a few decades old.
1. What victims besides figures of authority like cops and soldiers usually result in harsher sentences?
2. Yes, some countries have laws against bad thoughts. Many people consider that a bad thing.
Out of curiosity, do you know how many countries have hate crime laws?
And your last sentence is just weird. All hate crimes are *already* crimes. Remove the hate crime penalty, and there’s still a legal consequence for killing or attacking someone. Can you name one hate crime that would not be a crime if you got rid of hate crime legislation?
@Will:
Yeah? So what do I need to say to get you to quit avoiding the question?
Hint: I don’t think you understand the question in the first place, since you keep answering different questions instead. The question I posed had to do with why one group should have to prove something, while another group shouldn’t have to prove something. A proper answer is likely to start with, “I think that proponents of hate crime penalties should have to prove their effectiveness because…” and should also include the phrase, “I think that proponents of bank robbing penalties should not have to prove their effectiveness because…”.
Another hint: The best way for you to get out of answering the above question (which, AFAIK, does not have a non-bigoted answer) is to say, “While I think that all laws should have to pass a “Does it work?” test before being enacted, I realize that the world doesn’t currently work that way. Therefore, requiring the test only for laws that are targeted at helping minorities is inherently anti-minority.”
Hint #3: If you currently feel the need to explain why one law or another does or doesn’t work, then you missed the point of the question again. If you currently feel the need to say, “People are the same, the law should treat them the same” again, then you REALLY missed the point of the question again.
Bjartmarr:
You win all of my prizes for being very right.
—Myca
Awesome. Thanks.
You know, I just happened across a post by Eugene Volokh regarding hate crimes and hate crime statistics. It’s an interesting read, and fairly short. Look here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1186001898.shtml
The comments aren’t especially valuable, unfortunately.
Okay, I have a couple on-topic things to say.
1) Will, thanks for hanging out despite getting a bit of a beating in the thread. Nevre fun to be in the minority.
2) I’m going to remind everyone that Will is one of these people with whom we, as liberals and anarchists and marxists and activists, agree on 90% of issues. Unfortunately, many of these entries in this blog happen to deal with the issues on which we do not agree because of this blog’s focus. And even so, because of the way that blog interaction (and to some extent, regular old normal human interaction) work, we’re much more likely to be focusing on areas of disagreement rather than agreement.
Barry points this out to me every time I get especially growly at Cheryl Seelhoff, who I find incredibly annoying. When I responded to her announcement of a bid for president with something like, “Well, I’m not voting for her,” Barry called me on my willingness to focus on Seelhoff’s transphobia to the exclusion of her other positions. I still don’t think I’d vote for her if she were, by miracle, a viable candidate (for reasons including, but not limited to transphobia), but I think Barry’s point was really good, and I’d like to think that if we met in person Ms. Seelhoff and I could focus on the vast majority of areas in which we want to help each other, instead of the tiny minority of ways in which were diametrically and angrily opposed.
3) I can’t read this thread with Will’s eyes because I disagree with him, but I have argued alongside him on subjects when we agree, and find that he is smart and incisive. With my own eyes, I don’t totally understand why he took so long to say “Yes, I’m against laws that add penalties because the perpetrator is a terrorist or the victim is a cop” — but I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s because we’re trying to argue against him as if he were a conservative, or a moderate liberal, and not against his actual position. I think we’re making assumptions about what he thinks based on what other interlocutors we’ve had to deal with on the issue think. From his actual position, I’m going to assume “Of course you don’t add special status to police” is a duh.
4) I really don’t mean to smack anyone else on the nose, either, because from the position in which we’re arguing “weasel words” and “lie” feel very reasonable, and it’s hard for us to see where Will isn’t seeing that. I don’t think anyone’s said anything wrong to this point. I just want to call for a slight shift in the conversation (This isn’t a moderator call — two of the other primary speakers are moderators. This is a personal call for reframing, which you can feel free to ignore or make faces at.)
5) One reason that I’m posting this now is that I feel relatively excited. It seems to me that this thread has wound to a point where we’ve come up with a new argument in favor of hate crimes (within the current system), one I don’t remember reading before. I doubt it will have much effect on Will –who is in favor of radical restructurement of government, if I read him correctly, and who has little investment in the state of laws as they exist. But I think it’s f*ing rock solid against the average conservative or moderate liberal who we have to deal with on this issue. I feel like we got here partially because we’re talking to Will, whose position is relatively unique among visitors here, since his marxist (I apologize if I’m using the wrong term here) analysis leaves basically no room for race. Of course, it’s obvious the ways in which I vehemently disagree with his analysis, but I think it’s really fascinating how his presence has shaped the conversation, which leads me back to point one, now reiterated:
6) Will, thanks for hanging out, even reluctantly. I know it wasn’t fun, but I learned something from the discussion, and I appreciate it.
My source for low pedophilia recidivism rates (compared to other crimes) is a book that’s back in California, so I can’t pull out the cite.
Instead, here’s a large segment of an article written by Ed Koch in Real Clear Politics on October 3:
I can’t get the mayo clinic link that Robert provided to open on my computer, so I can’t access or respond to its claims.