Posted on 05/06/2007 8:56:38 AM PDT by TheBethsterNH
Published 5/5/07
Thought Police Hate-Crime Laws Are Misguided *** Six years into his presidency, George Bush has finally threatened to veto something that truly deserves to be extinguished. Unlike anti-torture legislation, funding of stem cell research and a timeline for disengaging from Iraq -- all of which Bush has vetoed or threatened to -- a proposal to expand the reach of federal hate crime law merits his opposition.
The measure passed the House Thursday and would extend federal hate-crime protection to those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, an expansion of the list of protected victims that now includes those who suffer bias-based violence because of their race, religion or nationality. If it becomes law, the measure would make it easier for federal law-enforcement officials to get involved in hate-crime investigations and apply harsher sentencing guidelines to those convicted.
The problem is not with expanding the number of victim categories; it is with the very concept of “hate crimes.” Hate crimes punish people for what they think, not for what they do, and the concept of criminalizing certain ugly thoughts runs counter to the principles of a society that reveres freedom of thought, speech and conscience.
Some of the more hyperbolic critics of this legislation complain that it amounts to an attempt to silence social conservatives. For example, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the measure would “muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” That's nonsense: Only those who acted on their bigotry by committing violent crimes against protected groups would be affected.
But just because some of the criticism is exaggerated doesn't mean all of it is invalid. Dobson and like-minded folks would remain free to express their opinions, but hate crime legislation still threatens to punish people for holding bad thoughts. If John Doe assaults a heterosexual for any of the normal variety of criminal reasons, he generally need not fear the involvement of the federal government or the threat of enhanced penalties. But if John Doe assaults a gay person because he hates that person's homosexuality, this legislation threatens to bring the power of the federal government against him and punish him with longer prison sentences. The only difference between the two crimes is what was going on in John Doe's mind, which means that the legislation would punish him for what he was thinking, not for what he did. We believe he should be punished for committing an assault in both cases, and the penalty should be the same regardless of the victim.
Hate-crime legislation also puts prosecutors and juries in the position of having to determine people's motivations, an all-but-impossible task in many cases.
One component of this proposal that has merit would allow the federal government to become involved in cases in which local law enforcement officials have shown indifference to violence committed against people because of their sexuality. Might it not make more sense to determine if an expansion of federal civil rights law would offer the federal government the authority to intervene when locals are insufficiently zealous? That might offer the necessary protection to a still persecuted minority without expanding the scope of a law that mocks the principle that the government has no business telling people what to think.
What are the statutes of limitations on this?
Would this mean that dipping Christ on the crucifix into a container of urine could lead to the arrest of the "artist" who expressed his art?
“Some of the more hyperbolic critics of this legislation complain that it amounts to an attempt to silence social conservatives. For example, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the measure would “muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” That’s nonsense: Only those who acted on their bigotry by committing violent crimes against protected groups would be affected.”
I’m not so sure it is nonsense. Even as we speak, the word “crime” is being redefined.
I hate "wabbits", what are my options?
Not only “crime” is being redefined but i wonder about what “protected groups” means...kind of steals something away from individuality.
We most seriously punish a hitman because he kills without emotion. We forgive an abused wife who kills her husband in his sleep because she was driven to it by emotions like fear and hatred. With “Hate-Crime” the logic is reversed. I would welcome an explanation.
You get around free speech by redefining speech you disagree with as "actions" such as intimidation or harassment, which are not protected.
How about this:
We punish an abusive-husband killing wife less severely, if at all, because she kills out of emotions we believe justified, at least to some extent.
The proposed laws would punish "hate crimes" more severely than similar actions because the proponents of these laws believe the hate and fear motivating such crimes is never, ever justified.
>>Would this mean that dipping Christ on the crucifix into a container of urine could lead to the arrest of the “artist” who expressed his art?<<
No, the proposed law requires causing physical injury.
Shouldn't law be a matter of reason and predictability based upon a rational, consistent philosophy instead of a mass of accommodations for the preferred emotions?
No argument from me. But I’m not who you need to convince.
Yes, I am fearful that the Islamic radicals will use these laws against us.
This is a two pronged attack on Christians, first HR-1952 puts Christian leadership in prisons then HR-2015 fills their empty positons with homsexuals.
Don’t forget that attached to this hate-crimes bill would be a gun-control bill which would ban all semiautomatic weapons, handguns, pump action shotguns, and rifles that “Shoot more than 100 yards and/or could penetrate level I body armor”. (That would ban everything except muzzloaders and hand-loaded shotguns) It would also require everyone to turn in their newly illegal weapons and register all legal ones with the government.
Although I am no fan of hate crime laws, juries have always been required to determine motivation in the majority criminal cases. Most criminal offenses have state of mind (mens rea) elements, the most common being intent. If you intended to kill someone it's murder, if you were just reckless it's manslaughter. Often, the hardest element for juries to deal with is whether the defendant intended the results of his actions or just didn't care what the results would be. A defendant may claim he didn't know there was dope in his glove compartment and that someone else left it there. Since most drugs laws only prohibit the "knowing" possession of the contraband the jury must decide whether the defendant knew or should have know the dope was there.
My problem with hate crimes is that they assume some victims are more important than others. A person shot as a result of jealousy or greed bleeds just a red and hurts just as bad as someone who gets shot because of racism. The motivation in each instance is just as evil.
The proposed laws would punish “hate crimes” more severely than similar actions because the proponents of these laws believe the hate and fear motivating such crimes is never, ever justified.
No, the proposed law requires causing physical injury.
I agree. Those promoting these laws do not.
Not counting hitmen or psychopaths, aren’t most violent crimes committed out of hate? You don’t kill someone because you think he’s a nice guy. Prosecuting differently because the crime was committed out of hate for a race, gender, etc. is just an attempt to make racism, sexism, etc. illegal. I believe that people have a right to be as prejudice as they want, and if they act on it and kill a person they’re prejudice against, they should be tried the same way as a normal murderer. To libs the Constitution is what you make it.
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.