Posted on 10/16/2007 9:28:37 AM PDT by Chuckm
By nature, a crime against an individual or private property is an act of hatred and contempt. In our free society, the purpose of our system of justice is to mete out punishment appropriate to the crime committed. To quote Gilbert & Sullivan in The Mikado “To let the punishment fit the crime - The punishment fit the crime.”
In a totalitarian society a crime is defined as an act that runs contrary to the perceived interests of the dictator, an act that threatens state power. In such a society, punishment is meted out at the whim of the government which claims to be the legitimate source of power. Political crimes, such as crimes against speech and opinion, are the hallmark of a totalitarian state and run contrary to American traditions. Those who are deemed to be “politically incorrect” in such a society can be punished at will.
Historically, America, while recognizing the inherent right to free speech, has at the same time rightfully maintained a few carefully selected laws against the use of hateful symbols, such as swastikas and burning crosses. This is because these symbols have been consistently used to incite mass violence. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated this principle when he stated that free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. The desecration of the American flag, I contend, should be added to these carefully selected laws as an act of extreme incitement and disrespect for a national symbol.
There is a movement in Congress today, sponsored by Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank, that seeks to expand this limited federal power by creating national laws against “hate crimes.” This would change our system of justice from one that is presently based on punishment for a criminal act to one that punishes motive based on arbitrary and subjective definitions. For the first time, our government would be assuming the political power to create criminal law. This would constitute an assumption by the Federal Government of legal powers that had traditionally resided with state and local governments.
Factors to be rightfully considered in the commission of a crime such as racism, homophobia, or any and all other categories of prejudice have been traditionally used as evidence in a trial. These factors go toward proving the motive of the alleged perpetrator and this is proper in a criminal proceeding. There is a vast difference, however, between using bias as evidence in a criminal trial and criminalizing bias itself. While bias of all types should be vociferously condemned, to criminalize bias gives the government the power to decide what constitutes bias. As a free society, we should not travel down that road.
There is a movement among radical feminists to have all rapes declared “hate crimes”. Their logic is that rape is the mechanism of systematic oppression of women by men ... and that since women, an oppressed class, are the primary targets of rape, that all rape should be prosecuted as a “hate crime” against women.
Contrary to the opinion of the author ... I don’t believe all (or even most) crimes are “hate crimes”. Car theft, for instance, isn’t generally done out of hate for the victim ... its done out of indifference to the property rights of the victim. Most crimes are greed-based, and “indifference crimes” ... not hate crimes.
I’ve begun to agree with the use of “hate crimes” legislation very under limited circumstances ... much like “terrorism” can make a seemingly innocuous crime worse, so can bigotry.
For instance - cross burning. Under normal law, this would be trespassing, a violation of fire codes and ordinances, and possibly a personal threat against an individual or family. But, ultimately, it is intended as a terroristic threat to an entire class of people - and it should be punished as such. I am not sure “hate crimes” legislation is the answer ... but it isn’t necessarily a terrible idea.
Ultimately - murder is murder, rape is rape, and battery is battery. Such crimes shoud not be punished any differently due to the thoughts of the criminal ... all should be punished swiftly and severely regardless. Terroristic threats and intimidation crimes are a different story ... all threats aren’t created equal. Setting a burning sack of stuff on a doorstep is FAR different from leaving a burning cross on a lawn - and it should be punished differently.
H
“Intimidation Crimes” === SLIPPERY SLOPE
“I felt intimidated”.
The person who survives murder will feel intimidated. The person who has the crap kicked out of them will say hey feel intimidated. The person being harrassed or stalked will feel intimidated. The person whose identity is stolen and has to deal with cleaing it up for a year feels intimidated.
You cannot use that as a criteria, you’re just changing the words “hate” and “intimidation”. Intimidation is a subjective term and again, a perception - and if the victim is in the right special protected class, what they perceive as intimidation now determines your level of guilt and punishment.
I think the problem here is that, for leftists, when any person mugs or kills another person, then this is usually the result of justified class hatred against the oppressor. So, if criminals have to be punished at all, then only as mildly as possible. But leftists want exceptions for those cases where the victim is one of them, therefore we need hate crime laws.
>> “Intimidation Crimes” === SLIPPERY SLOPE “I felt intimidated”.
“Terrorism” can be an equally slippery slope ... but, that does not stop us from using it. It simply must be well defined.
>> The person who survives murder will feel intimidated. The person who has the crap kicked out of them will say hey feel intimidated. The person being harrassed or stalked will feel intimidated. The person whose identity is stolen and has to deal with cleaing it up for a year feels intimidated.
Agreed. However, my understanding of “hate crimes” or “crimes of intimidation” was that the crime would be made with the intent of intimidating an entire CLASS of people, not simply intimidating the victim. For instance - cross burning is intended to intimidate the victim, and signal other blacks that they are not welcome in the area. KKK beatings are intended to injure the victim - and terrorize a race. In such cases, the beatings or burning itself may not be the only crime committed ... the terroristic threats against the intended class would likewise be a criminal act.
I do not believe rape would fall into such a category, however. The mechanics of the act dictates that women are primarily targeted by rapists. However, despite “intimidated” feelings among women, rapes are generally not committed with an intent to terrorize women ... they are committed as acts of power, aggression and lust against an individual, not a class (generally speaking).
Legally speaking, this would have to be more about the intent of the criminal than the feelings of the victims.
H
But being and oppressed minority in this day and age is impossible as a class. Women and minorities have gained power to an extent that they could never be oppressed again. But I’m not sure the opposite is true. Hate crime legislation is used almost exclusively against white males even though the majority of crimes that occur between whites and blacks are perpetrated by blacks. The only question you have to ask yourself is do white males deserve to be discriminated against by the rest of society? Liberals would probably say yes.
Show me a thief, I’ll show you somebody that hates the person who acquired lawfully that which he would steal.
>> Hate crime legislation is used almost exclusively against white males even though the majority of crimes that occur between whites and blacks are perpetrated by blacks. The only question you have to ask yourself is do white males deserve to be discriminated against by the rest of society?
No. But any white males (or black males, etc.) who seek to intimidate a class of individuals should be punished for their crimes. The intimidation activities (as opposed to the reasonable speech activities) of the KKK would certainly be a target of these laws ... but I don’t see why the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam wouldn’t be impacted. PETA and militant environmentalist groups could certainly be prosecuted for vandalism against SUV manufacturers and owners, activities against those doing animal testing, etc. Anti-semites who vandalize Jewish sites, anti-Christians who vandalize churches, WTO protesters who destroy Starbucks’, socialist protesters who vandalize capitalist enterprises ... all can, and should, be prosecuted under hate crimes statutes. These crimes are not simply vandalism - they’re political acts fully intended to intimidate entire swatches of society (Jews, Christians, blacks, capitalists, SUV-owners, animal scientists, etc.) ... and they should be punished to a greater extent than simple vandalism or trespassing fines.
Additionally, if phrased correctly, such laws could be an important tool in the prosecution of captured terrorists who’ve engaged in the planning stages of terrorist activity.
White males are not the only group that would be impacted by well crafted hate-crimes/anti-terrorism legislation.
H
>> Show me a thief, I’ll show you somebody that hates the person who acquired lawfully that which he would steal.
A car thief usually doesn’t even know their victim. I’d have a hard time finding “hate” for auto-owners in car thiefs. Entitlement, yes. Indifference, absolutely. Hate, I don’t see it.
H
That was just a dumb statement by the author. Most crimes are more a matter of simply not respecting property and so feeling no restrictions at taking it from others.
“...a class of individuals should... “
So much for a classless society.
“No. But any white males (or black males, etc.) who seek to intimidate a class of individuals should be punished for their crimes. The intimidation activities (as opposed to the reasonable speech activities) of the KKK would certainly be a target of these laws ... but I don’t see why the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam wouldn’t be impacted.”
Prosecutors are loathe to pursue hate crime charges against minorities. It happens again and again.
“White males are not the only group that would be impacted by well crafted hate-crimes/anti-terrorism legislation.”
Exactly how, in this racially charged political environment, and the legislation being crafted by a Democrat majority, are we supposed to end up with “well crafted legislation.”
Sorry, aint gonna happen.
>> So much for a classless society.
I’m not of the opinion that a classless society is possible, or even desirable.
H
“But leftists want exceptions for those cases where the victim is one of them, therefore we need hate crime laws.”
Leftists are pandering to their base with these hate crime laws to placate their constituents. This is how dispicable people like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton keep their jobs although hopefully, Hillary will become unemployed in ‘08.
I don’t believe intimidation can legally stay well-defined. There are too many people out there that will attempt broaden the definition.
Why do I say that? Because it’s exactly what they are doing with hate crimes. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
I don’t believe you need to have hate crimes. I believe it can be done on a case by case basis, if circumstances in a particular case warrant a harsher punishment, then so be it. We don’t need to have such a flawed concept codified in law.
To use your example. A guy who burns a cross on a white guy’s lawn. Maybe the guy is stupid and doesn’t know a white guy lives there but he did it out of “hate”. (BTW that is just stupied anyways as of course everyone who commits crimes against another IS NOT OUT OF LOVE for his brother or sister - redundant to say hate crime.) How about the black guy or gal who fakes a hate crime and burns the cross themselves (and this does happen and there are real examples)? Self-hate crime? How about those who fake these crimes and knowingly allow innocent peoples’ lives to be destroyed? Hate crime? I sure think so, but it has nothing to do with whether a class of people were targeted or not.
I don’t believe we need hate crimes for terrorists. The actions of actual, bona-fde terrorists already are so heinous and atrocious, they merit the heaviest sentences anyways. Society saying what they did was even worse because they ‘hate’ the people you did this to - it’s such a childish position. OF FRIGGIN’ COURSE they hate the people they did it to - like you can have a terrorist or murderer or rapist or violent thug who doesn’t have ‘hate’ for their fellow man that they’d actually put their hate into action. The rest of us control ourselves. Criminals by their nature hate others, they would not do what they do if they did not have hatred toward others - their spouse, men, women, ethnic groups, the elderly or children, or other easy prey. They do not consider other people ‘people’ but things that serve their whims and purposes.
Hate crimes laws are redundant. Plus hate crimes laws turn regular people into criminals for believing what they believe and living their faith. If you want to go to jail for not accepting homosexuality or renting to gay couples, or being forced to hire gays at your church, else risking a hate crimes lawsuit because your faith says homosexuality is wrong and you don’t want to encourage people in such behavior, then good for you. I believe it’s flawed logic, that the same crime against one person is no different against another if they’re a woman, or some other color or race. I believe in equality under the law and hate crimes laws make certain ‘protected classes’ more equal and somehow deserving more punishment than others.
>> Prosecutors are loathe to pursue hate crime charges against minorities. It happens again and again.
That sounds like a problem with the prosecutor - not the law.
>> Exactly how, in this racially charged political environment, and the legislation being crafted by a Democrat majority, are we supposed to end up with “well crafted legislation.”
That’s a different question entirely. My point was that I am not necessarily against all “hate crimes” legislation. Well crafted hate crimes laws that apply equally to “liberal” hate crimes (like defiling a veterans memorial, for instance) and “conservative” hate crimes could be an important tool in combating violent extremism on both sides.
Generally speaking, hate crime legislation should be primarily a state activity ... as murder, battery, assault, trespassing, vandalism, etc. are generally state crimes. There can be federal legislation to the extent that “hate crimes” motive can be attached to federal terrorism laws, etc ... but only as they attach to a federal crime.
H
‘A car thief usually doesn’t even know their victim. I’d have a hard time finding “hate” for auto-owners in car thiefs. Entitlement, yes. Indifference, absolutely. Hate, I don’t see it.’
You’ve never had significant conversations with convicted thiefs. They ‘want’ what you have, they don’t like that you have it and they don’t to.
Call it ‘resentment’ if it works for you. My experience in this shows it to be hate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.