We might want to punish (specially) bad acts done hatefully either because we thought that such acts were especially bad, or because we hoped to deter acts done from hate; maybe because we think the groups that are hated by those likely to commit such crimes need special protection.
I do not here comment on the merits of a particular law, but the objection that hate crimes legislation crimibalizes thought is misplaced; all criminal statutes do that in part because of the mens rea requirement. It creates different classes of victims, but there may be a reason to do so.
--Justin Schwartz (a lawyer)
>thought perhaps the more versed in this issue and in legal issues in
>general might fill me in here. someone posted a comment wondering why hate
>crimes were penalized differently/why there had to be this category at all.
> i replied to point out that we tend to penalize the prosecuted on the
>basis of the motivations/mind set for a crime. hence, first and second
>degree murder, manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter, crimes of passion,
>murder in cold blood, etc.
>
>i then went on to explain that we are penalizing the prosecuted differently
>because they are engaging in acts that violate our individualist ethos that
>people should be treated as individuals and not members of a group. when
>someone murders out of hatred of a group, their motivation is to act in a
>certain way because they are punishing one person for that perceived
>actions of an entire group. this seems wrong in a culture which rejects
>affirmative action if it appears that people are "rewarded" as members of a
>group. yadda.
>
>he replied by noting that his offhand comment was prompted by the piece,
>below.
>
>i replied explaining that the argument is a canard. the whole point of
>hate crimes legislation is to have a category through which to discern the
>mind set of the perpetrator of a crime and then, once prosecuted, penalize
>them accordingly.
>
>anyway. i'm just shooting from the hip on this one, applying my
>understanding of retributive justice learned long ago to a topic i know
>little about, in its specifics.
>
>wondering what folks thought of the piece and what kinds of rationales or
>arguments one would offer against the righting idiocy in the essay, below.
>not so much because i want to educate the uneducable or uninterested but,
>rather, because i am curious what others have to say.
>
>kelley
>
>>I agree snit, and I must asmit I was quite remiss in my brevity. It was
>>more a topic on my mind that I used to bait the hook.
>>
>>To wit, I understand that punishments are metered out dependant upon
>>circumstances. Rage, passion, vengenace, vehicular, involuntary, etc..
>>
>>The following from Neal Boortz sums up better than I can;
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>A big problem with hate crime laws is that they create different classes
>>of victims. If someone attacks me because they want my car, and I’m
>>murdered, the punishment may be less and the category of crime would be
>>different than if someone attacks a gay man and murders him because they
>>don’t like gay men. In both cases, murder committed, man dead. But my
>>murder is somehow less egregious than the murder of the homosexual.
>>Somehow, and I hope you'll excuse me for this insensitivity, but I just
>>don’t see it that way.
>>
>>In a society where equal protection under the law is supposed to be the
>>noble standard, there is no room to create different classes of victims.
>>Hate crime legislation places a different government-assigned value on the
>>life, liberty and property rights of people based on their color,
>>religion, sexual orientation, national origin physical ability or
>>whatever.
>>
>>Clinton says "All Americans deserve protection from hate."
>>
>>What? Do we suddenly have another right here? The right to be protected
>>from hate? Let's add this to the right to a job, the right to a living
>>wage, the right to a condo, the right to breast implants and the right to
>>a satisfying sex life.
>>
>>It is so nice to know that I now have the right not to be hated, and that
>>Bill Clinton is ready to bring the full force of the Imperial Federal
>>Government of the United States to bear on anyone who dares to dislike me.
>>After all, I "deserve" it. The next time someone says they hate me, what
>>should I do? Should I swear out a warrant? Is it a federal crime, or just
>>a local ordinance? How will the person be punished? Can I sue them? What
>>if someone just says they hate my show? Do I deserve to be protected from
>>that?
>>
>>Let's try to get just a bit serious here. Hating me is not a violation of
>>my rights. I have no right to be loved. I have no right to be liked. I
>>have not right not to be hated. It is not the role of the federal
>>government to keep me from being hated …. Or to protect me from hate. It
>>is the role of government to seek to apprehend and prosecute those who
>>deprive me of life, liberty or property, whether it's out of hate or just
>>a desire for my stuff. The offender should be prosecuted for the crime
>>they have committed. (Followed by, in all probability, a slap on the wrist
>>and a few minutes of community service.) What they happen to think about
>>me is absolutely beside the point.
>>
>>(www.boortz.com/hate.htm)
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>If someone is murdered b/c of race/creed/orientation/gender, etc.. it is
>>still a crime. Should be treated as any other premeditated murder, not an
>>excuse to create additional rules under the guise of safety.
>>
>>As Boortz says, there is no constitutional guarantee against being hated!
>>There is a protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but not
>>for being liked/accepted!
>>
>>This is the ridiculous notion that you can legislate people into "being
>>nice". It's not illegal (yet) to be a predjucdiced asshole. However, it
>>is illegal to impede the aforementioned rights. "Hate crimes" make it
>>appear that there is a reason to kill someone, and one reason is more
>>wrong than the other.
>>
>>IMHO, what the .gov is attempting to do is more of the same, "big brother
>>knows best". By sliding in on sensitive issues (such as predjudice and
>>race relations) that elicit an emotional response the sheeple will gladly
>>hand over their rights in the name of "safety". You start by defining
>>murders as "hate crime" then move onto limitations of speech (as they are)
>>by saying that certain speech is "hate speech" and draw up some imaginary
>>figures correlating hate speech with hate crime. Soon we've made it
>>illegal to flip someone off in traffic or to roll your eyes at a
>>nuissance. It starts with race/gender/orientation and then carries over
>>to the bullshit notion of "self-esteem" and the such. Hell, a 4th grader
>>could end up in jail for making a "fat kid" joke!!
>>
>>Again, a crime is crime. If the punishment fit the crime -why does a
>>college student get 10 yrs. mandatory for LSD possession, yet the only
>>victim is himself?, why does the .gov keep drug trafficking/murder
>>profitable with their convoluted drug laws?- there would be no reason to
>>rank senselss acts of violence. They would all be punished for being just
>>that, senseless acts of violence.
>>
>>********I feel I must reitterate, the post about the shitty principal
>>being homosexual and this are WHOLLY UNRELATED. I was merely condensing
>>posts, by bringing up the second topic after my reply to an earlier post.
>>That reference was to illustrate the already thin ice he skates on in his
>>environment. I wanted to stress a desire to NOT break that ice but merely
>>capitalize on the scrutiny he is already under, should occasion prove
>>necessary.******
>>
>>quoth tha Ranger
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com