[Senator] Gordon Smith Creates Hate Crime

Oregon Magazine ^ | August 13, 2003 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

Oregon's marvelous federal senator, Mr. Smith, is working with Ted "Chappy" Kennedy of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts to enlarge the scope of "hate crime laws."

It is traditional in law that the reason a killing happens has a bearing on the punishment, if any, associated with the event.

The basic difference is intent, though if the intent is part of a situation involving a typical self defense, the killing is usually legal. Where the death is not a matter of self defense, long-established rules hold sway.

If you kill somebody without intending to do so, and not as a result of your negligent carelessness, that is one thing.

If the event comes about as a result of your negligent carelessness, even though you did not intend to kill anbody, that is another thing.

If you do it while engaged in felonious activity, like a robbery, that is a third thing.

And, if the killing is the result of intent on your part, that is a fourth thing which is called murder.

But hate crime laws add a fifth thing: affirmative action punishment....(snip)

[okie01]

"I would be willing to concede that there is no need for hate crimes legislation...

"If you would be willing to concede that we are a long way off from equal enforcement of the law..."

Whatever makes you think the former has anything to do with the latter?

If laws are being equally enforced, then there is no need for hate crime laws.

And, if they are not being enforced equally, how will hate crime laws make it any different?

Hate crime laws are designed solely for the purpose of political pandering to "victim" groups. They have no other purpose. Other than undermining the Constitution, of course...

[dwd1]

Because the question which you do not want to discuss is whether hate crime legislation deters crime... I do not know if it does... I fall into only one group that falls victim to hate crimes...
You might want to ask women why they have felt a need for the stronger enforcement of domestic violence laws or even the existence of domestic laws...

I have the feeling they may tell you it is because of their vulnerability in personal relationships...

I would be interested to know if you have a position on whether women need more protection from men or vice versa...

Other than that one group membership, I don't walk around worried about much... But after the history in this country which you and I are well aware of, I do think it is a good thing that the laws have been changed because there was a time when I was considered 3/5 of a person, there was a time when I would not have been allowed to vote, there was a time when I would have faced some very difficult barriers to housing and employment regardless of my qualifications...and there were times when my complaints of persecution and violence fell on deaf ears...

Also, I was curious if you have an opinion as to whether the extra punishment that is levied against those who kill police officers in the line of duty is warranted or is murder simply murder?...

When you talk about equal enforcement, you have to look at who is in law enforcement and understand that these are human beings who make decisions based on the law but also based on their own feelings. They have discretion to arrest or not and I don't have a major problem with that... I just think it needs to be recognized that there may have been and may still be a tendency to look the other way if the citizen being protected is not necessarily "mainstream", member of a community of a different culture (etc.)

There is also another concern... I would not want to see a gay person feel that he needs to carry a concealed weapon because he feels that persons can assault him at will and the law will do nothing or less to protect him... We may have a case one day where those persons with a lifestyle not approved by the majority of persons in this country are able to plead self defense...

Do we let those that feel persecuted and have been persecuted take the law into their own hands or do we let them know that they are as welcome in this country as anyone else?

I don't think I want to see Muslims or Jews doing the same... I don't want to see high school kids carrying guns because they feel the juvenile justice system does not protect them from other kids who are undeterred by the laws we have on the books... Even the Mormon church had to migrate west at one time to avoid religious persecution...
And though they had a well armed militia, they still faced trouble simply because of their beliefs...

I don't think it was that long ago that churches in the South, Synagogues, and Mosques were being served molotov cocktails... It was like happy hour on churches...

I have to admit that I never had in such fear of that happening while attending the first Baptist Church in Muleshoe, TX.

The Amish Communities face "Clayping" and other persecution... If you were or are a member of these communities and the law was equally enforced, your history would be a lot different...

I am no authority but I tend to believe that people that want hate crime protection are scared.... They are not scared because they want tax credits or they want a free ride... Their fear is a reaction to the unlawful acts they have faced. They simply want to be able to enjoy the freedom that the "Constitution" provides. That equal protection thing is wonderful but it is just a piece of paper... If you think that the equal protection law is going to stop skin heads from attacking immigrants or those of a certain religion, that it will deter gang bangers from jumping on some Marines and stabbing them, I will wait patiently for that to happen...

And I hope you know that it was not that long ago that
the Federal Government had to bring federal prosecutions against police and other citizens who did violence to "fellow citizens"... Where was the equal protection clause then...

As I said before, I think support for this law depends on which end of the stick you have been on...

[dwd1]

I think that the key word is "If"...I am not going to get into some smart-alecked "if statements" but I think you may want to consider that possibility that the "if" in your statement has a way to go before being removed... Persons that are being mistreated should not have to wait for that "if" to be the reality and not simply a goal we would all like to see come to fruition...

By the way, do you think the death penalty deters crime or is it simply societies expression of rage and our legal display of contempt at certain behavior....Behavior so unacceptable, we are willing to end your life if you engage in it...

[dwd1]

Are you sure that the real problem is not with the laws but who the law is about?

I am no fan of the gay lifestyle, I am certainly not a practitioner of Islam, I am not Jewish, I am not female, I am not under 18, I am not Catholic, I am not Amish (but I can speak German),I am not Mexican, I am not an illegal alien, I am not Mormon, I am not Asian, I am not gay....I may or may not approve or get along with people from these various groups...It is possible that I dislike these persons simply because they are a member of one of the groups...I may even hate these people...That is perfectly legal... But if I let my hate of a member of one of these groups guide my actions and serve as the primary motivations for my getting a gun and blowing the first one of these people I run into away...

[okie01]

"Are you sure that the real problem is not with the laws but who the law is about?"

I am personally offended that you might believe I harbor such an odious notion. But I understand why you ask.

The answer is: Yes, I am absolutely certain that my real problem is with the law, not who the law might be about.

I am firmly against the law treating any one person differently from any other. That goes for both hate crimes and so-called affirmative action.

At the same time, I recognize that some people will get preferential treatment, others abusive treatment. But that is not restricted to matters of race. It has to do with money, station, age, or even characteristics so frivolous as size, appearance, or clothing, etc.

In such cases, the problem is not with the law, it is with the offender. Be it an authority, who abuses a minority. Or an employer who doesn't avail himself of the most qualified help, because of some kind of bias. Or it might even lie with the offended, who can't get over a slight -- real or imagined -- and move on with his or her life.

At some level, we all discriminate...and are discriminated against. I myself am prejudiced -- against lying, cheating and stealing, which are not exclusive to any race, gender or sexual persuasion.

The law is designed to punish criminal acts. By anybody, against anybody. It should not be asked to play favorites.

[dwd1]

I meant no offense but our prejudices define each and every one of us. I share many of your same concerns. People that know me well would tell you that I try to understand why as opposed to what so intent is very important to me. I have lived in places from Guthrie (your original state capital) to Ramstein Germany to Naples Italy and now here in CA. I still believe that most people try to do the right thing. I also believe others do not know how... You do have a point that some people want to call a lawyer rather than working something out because of their history... I think we both want to see that stop...

Thank you for the discussion...

[thtr]

”I disagree. The intent is to give special groups special identity - so that killing or harming them is WORSE than killing or harming others.

As far as I know, the prosecution for “hate” crimes is not focused on protecting any special group or identity. For instance, a number of black people have had the “hate” crime designation attached to crimes against white people. The crime these people are convicted of is not “hate” but rather assault or murder. The designation of “hate” crime adds to the punishment.

This idea may, I think, may come into play with regard to crimes committed by terrorists against Americans as well. In this case, any additional punishment is welcomed.

[WaterDragon]

What would you suggest as "an additional punishment" to the death penalty for murder?

[WaterDragon]

For politicians, "hate crime" laws are a special-interest-group-vote-getter. Period. They leave it to those susceptible to twist and turn logic and morality to justify such idiocies.

[First Amendment]

I can see a lot of discussion has taken place since I was on this thread, and I haven't read all of it. But I just wanted to respond to your last comments to me.
It is true that justice is not applied equally, no doubt about it. But creating extra punishments or special categories of crimes depending to which group of people the victim belongs, belittles those who are not members of such designated groups.

As far as special laws protecting children, or the elderly, these are special groups by their nature, being ill-equipped to defend themselves.
And as far as justice not being applied fairly, as long as we are in this mortal world it will ever be so. Adding hate crimes legislation is just another layer of injustice.

What is needed is a more moral people. Piling law upon law will not help. As long as people are educated in the "religion" of secular humanism/moral relativity, injstice and cruelty will only get worse and worse. What keeps human beings from being worse than beasts in the forest is not laws, but conscience. And to hear one's conscience, one needs training in some form of religion.

I would be considered by most here on FR to be a "member" of a minority religion, but all the great monotheistic religions have broadly speaking the same moral codes. That's what we need more of, not law piled upon unconstitutional law, misapplied by humans who are more and more riddled with moral flaws.

[First Amendment]

I would not want to see a gay person feel that he needs to carry a concealed weapon because he feels that persons can assault him at will and the law will do nothing or less to protect him...

You really ought to educate yourself about the homosexual agenda, and in the archives of FR there is more information in one place than probably anywhere on the web. Just because a person practices same sex sodomy in no way gives that person any special rights, privileges, or advantages. In fact, such a person is suffering from SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder), they are shortening their life spans, acquiring and spreading many diseases, some incurable, and they are more prone to molest and seduce children and young adolescents than the rest of us. So please don't add them to the victim list.

Another point - if law enforcement and the justice departments actually punished those who really break the law, there would be a great disincentive to wouldbe law breakers. First of all, a proper use of the death penalty for murderers and child molesters, swift and sure, would be a start.

[thtr]

Hate crimes do not only include murder and not all murders result in the death penalty. The 1994 Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act provides for longer sentences where the offense is determined to be a hate crime. Hate crimes cover a broad area including vandalism crimes against Christian churches and Jewish synagogues as well as attacks on the clergy.

I agree with you that “hate crime” legislation are a ”special-interest-group-vote-getter”, but such legislation is offered and promoted by both liberals and conservatives.

[dwd1]

I understand how you feel... I am no specialist on that particular part of society...I just hope they never outlaw black men and italiam women (go franco harris)...I really like her cooking...

Thank you for the discussion...

[dwd1]

I think pursuit of more encouraging more moral people would be treating the disease and not just the symptoms. Well said...

[First Amendment]

Thanks for the discussion from my side too. Another point I find offensive (and I would think you would too!) is how the "gay rights" activists are trying to get credit on the coat tails of the legitimate civil rights issue of black people. I noticed on your info page that you are black. Being born black, or Asian or any race or ethnicity is a neutral, unchangeable reality. No one has ever changed their race or their ethnicity. But there are thousands of ex-homosexuals, and also people who decided to become or act "gay". So homosexuality is a certain type of activity, it is not in any way similar to a racial identity. It is a group identity only in that it involves certain actions, which are notoriously unhealthy, conisdered immoral since time immemorial, destructive to young people, etc. How can this compare to being born black, which is not a choice, and is completely benign or neutral?
To me, this is really trying to take advantage of the legitimate struggle and pain that black people have undergone and suffered throughout the years.

[Salvation]

Doesn't sound like the Gordon Smith I know. More details needed.

[First Amendment]

I read some time ago that Sen. Gordon Smith was promoting the hate crimes crapola. I'm from OR so I was even more irritated. I emailed or called his office just to vent. He's an icky senator but what's the alternative?

[Salvation]

**what's the alternative?**

I'll keep the (R)Republican behind his name for the present.

[okie01]

Democrats and the NAACP's New Slavery, by Tammy Bruce.