Although I have only glanced at the details of the current Hate Crimes bill that is being debated in the House of Representatives, I generally oppose such legislation. My thinking is that motive should be considered in the sentencing phase, but not in indictment phase. So, if someone assaults someone they should be indicted for assault. If it can be demonstrated that the motive for the assault was racist, homophobic, or misogynistic, then that can used as an aggravating factor in sentencing, but it shouldn’t be a separate charge.
I know that this position puts me in opposition to Democratic Party, but it’s what I think is the best way to deal with hate motivated crimes. But, when I listen to the debate it is absolutely disgusting to hear to the Republican arguments. They are arguing that this legislation is opposed by pastors all over the country because it prevents them from putting up billboards using scriptural passages to rail against homosexuality. They are arguing that the legislation criminalizes thought (namely, hateful thought). I doubt the legislation does any of that, but their argument is that homophobia is legitimate.
Homophobia is not legitimate.
I’m a straight, white, male, and if someone beats me up because they don’t like white men then that is a hate crime. If the prosecutor can demonstrate that the only reason I was beaten up is because I am a white man then I think it is legitimate to tack on some extra months of jail time for that reason. I don’t think it is legitimate to charge the person that beat me up with an additional charge beyond assault and battery. But, the Republicans argument seems to be different. They seem to be saying that is perfectly okay to beat someone up because you hate them.
There are arguments against Hate Crimes legislation. There is a constitutional argument. There are practical arguments. The Republicans aren’t making them. They are more concerned that the Democrats would bring up this legislation on the National Day of Prayer and accuse us of being hateful for doing so.
And, just to be clear, there are many elements of this bill that I definitely support, including funding for local police to prevent hate crimes. The only thing I oppose is the following:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
What’s the problem? I might be wrong, but I think this will muck up the justice system with efforts to determine the motivation of violent crime. In some cases it might be very clear…a group of teenagers decided to go cruising looking for someone gay to beat up. We could deal with that as an aggravating factor in sentencing without charging them with a hate crime. But, in many cases, it will be purely incidental that the victim of a crime was gay, or of a certain race or nationality. I don’t think this is a productive thing to introduce into our justice system.
Nevertheless, the longer I listen to Republicans oppose the bill the less opposition I feel.
And then there is this:
United States Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has reiterated his support for the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. In an April 16 letter to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), McCain says the law, passed in 1993, “unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.” Senator McCain goes on to incorrectly assert that the U.S. Supreme Court “has ruled that the military may constitutionally discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.”
McCain is free to say whatever he wants. But this is hate speech and it is beneath the dignity of anyone that would ask us to make them the President of the United States.
I don’t think I get it…
Aren’t those offenses already a crime under the law, regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin? And where does homophobia get covered in there?
What am I missing?
Sorry, here’s the rest.
Another pizza argument, eh? I use the word pizza because his argument has no depth, it is flat and only offers a version of instant gratification. Or, perhaps a sound bite argument would be more familiar to us.
I do sorely miss the texture and din of great debate – how unPatriotic of me. Is there a civil liberty lost that will finally awaken this country to stand up, not so sure.
are you referring to McCain’s argument?
I agree with you, Boo. What crime isn’t hateful?
This is simply muddying up the waters as well as legislators trying to look busy and kill time until they have to actually do some work. They are avoiding the job at hand, which is eliminating the crime family that has seized our nation.
Just more bullshit to ignore.
Sorry, my comment was meant to go up on Steven’s above, I’ll try better next time…
I had never thought about it in those terms before, Booman, but I have to say that I agree completely and that such an approach eliminates the problems I had with hate crime legislation before. It makes perfect sense to treat bigotry as an aggravating factor to be taken account of in sentencing.
That said, we do distinguish between crimes on the basis of motivation in many areas. For example, the difference between second and third degree homicide is entirely based on motivation.
Mitigating and aggravating factors are already part of sentencing (sometimes by statute, sometimes by judgment).
If I don’t like how someone is looking at me and I punch them in the face, it seems unproductive to get into whether I knew they were gay, or a Methodist, or from Sri Lanka, or whether I just subliminally hate Norwegians that stare at me. But that is the kind of mischief I see mucking up our courts.
I think it is unnecessary. If you find my diary and it clearly shows I hate Norwegians and fantasize about beating them up? Sure. Tack on a few more months of jail because I’m an asshole and a menace to Scandinavian ex-pats.
But, even if you do that, does punishing my mental illness act as a real deterrent? I don’t think so.
I don’t mean to be flippant about the kind of terror that is inflicted on minorities, gays, and women. But the quetion is: is this good jurisprudence? I don’t think it is.
But, even if you do that, does punishing my mental illness act as a real deterrent?
Without considering the legal ramifications, I think this is the core of the bigotry issue — it’s a mental illness. Bigots are delusional sociopaths whose condition can be, under certain circumstances, contagious. Whatever we do about them in the penal system, it’s high time we started thinking about what to do about them in a public health context.
I am not, incidentally, suggesting that we begin quarantining people on the basis of their delusional beliefs — after all, we let people walk around all over the place with heads full of nonsense, and it would be highly dangerous to create a medical paradigm that could be used as a weapon against free speech. But just as we restrict people from shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it may be time to look at something like Britain’s laws against inciting hatred.
They seem to be saying that is perfectly okay to beat someone up because you hate them.
So, it’s okay if I go beat up Tom Delay??? Cool!
One of the prime rationales for hate crime legislation is to give the the federal goverment a basis for intervening if local law enforcement is ignoring a crime.
Say for example, a small town police chief doesn’t think so much of teh gay and dragging his feet in the investigation of a beating, a basis would then exist for the feds to get involved.