A homosexual teenager has been exposed for perpetrating a fake hate campaign…against herself!
The teen, who heads the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, admitted to authorities that she was the perpetrator of the incidents, which included vandalizing her own car with derogatory graffiti, police said….Other incidents involved teachers who received threatening telephone messages.“It has been determined that all the incidents have been committed by a single individual,” Wickham said.
The student was not identified by police….The girl has been suspended and could face expulsion, said Bob Ferguson, district school superintendent.
“She confessed to everything,” Ferguson said. “She did admit to police that it was basically for attention.”
The student was not arrested, but police said the case would be referred to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office for review….In a series of incidents dating back to November, the student claimed she was the target of hateful language, with anti-gay epithets scrawled on her car and on her school locker. She told police she was pelted with eggs outside her home by an unknown assailant. (Source)
Also see Michelle Malkin. “Hate crime” is nothing more than an attempt to police thoughts, which is anathema to democracy and freedom. All thought crime laws should be abolished!
I’ve decided to start a group blog that will not only expose idiots who do this, but one that will mock the very laws and lawmakers themselves. If I may be so ambitious, I’d like to start a grassroots campaign to dismantle these laws, or at the very least, raise awareness of how unnecessary they are, how open they are to abuse, unintended consequences, etc.
I just bought the domain “FakeHate.com.” Details to follow…
Related posts:
- More Fake Hate
- Alicia Hardin, Exposed
- It’s a Hate Crime After All
- Sorry, Whites Not Protected Under Hate Crime Law
Addendum: For some reason, a couple of readers fail to see the distinction between the element of premeditation or aforethought in a crime such as murder, and crimes based on how you feel or what you think about protected classes of people, such as blacks and homosexuals. So-called hate crimes criminalize thoughts, something that should never be a part of a free society. Hate is not a crime. Killing someone is a crime. The difference in the degrees of murder (first, second, and third), for example, go to the intent of the perpetrator, not his motive for the killing.
The mental state of a perpetrator is an important element in a crime like attempted murder, but the focus is on whether he planned or intended to kill the victim, not what he thinks or feels about the victim. Our “feelings” or opinions about people are not subject to penalty. I think I need to write a well-researched op-ed and/or direct you toward legal papers on the subject. Perhaps I’m not explaining the concept very well, or perhaps those who favor hate crimes are too biased to understand it.
Last year I blogged about the stupidity of “hate crimes.” An excerpt:
I’m going to demonstrate the silliness of these laws. Let’s suppose I’m bashing you over the head because you cut me off in traffic. There’s a law against that. Now let’s suppose I’m doing the same thing because you’re white, and I hate whites. Does the crime change? Why should I get two extra years in jail because I hate whites? … What if I’m bashing you over the head because you’re white and because you cut me off in traffic?Let’s say I, a black person, set you on fire because you’re black and I hate black people, even though I’m black. In addition to other criminal laws broken, is it also a hate crime?
…Is wife-beating a hate crime? Is raping a woman a hate crime? What about raping a black woman? Is it a hate crime only if you’re doing it because she’s black? Is the crime qualitatively worse because you hate blacks, women or both?
{ 16 trackbacks }
{ 85 comments }
La Shawn:
Marin County – Do we need to know more?
Does any sane person think that a White Male would not be in jail after the crimes of filing false reports to police?
Police have been feminized in Marin County – the same place that gave us Johnny Taliban.
““Hate crime†is nothing more than an attempt to police thoughts, which is anathema to democracy and freedom. All thought crime laws should be abolished!”
How about fraud and perjury?
LaShawn, why is pre-meditated murder not a thought crime?
I’m serious.
What I really hate with the hoax things is that they make us question when real crime happens.
My daughter participated in the “Day of Silence” on her high school campus. She was shocked at the behavior of some of her classmates..She was shoved in the hallways and called names. There was graphic, obscene graffitti on the walls (the admin covered it up in the early morning, but when one of my daughters friends try to take a pic of it to document it, the camera was confiscated and the girl suspended).
And another friend, leaving school across the back athletic fields, was surrounded by members of the baseball team, she was shoved to the ground her t-shirt ripped, spit upon and when she finally was able to escape, they pelted her with rocks.
The admin has suspended the boys, but told the girl not to talk about the incident. I’m still trying to follow up with the local PD to see if this was reported.
I’m so mad at this hoaxer I cannot express, because it will make people question whether or not stuff like what happened at my daughter’s high school is “real.”
DS, murder is the crime. Premeditation goes to the mental state of the murderer while planning or committing the crime, not how he felt while committing the crime. Whether a murder was planned goes to the degree of murder, i.e., first, second or third degree. Hate crimes aren’t similar in any way. Hate crimes punish thoughts.
“DS, murder is the crime.”
Under the common law, murder is a causing the death of another with malice aforethought, where the words “malice” and “aforethought” are terms of art that describe 4 potential types of murder. 3 of which are the mental states of intent to kill/ knowing you will kill, intent to inflict serious injury, and extreme recklessness. (Low, criminal law black letter series).
I don’t know how to describe intent or mental states as anything other than thoughts. Thought which are otherwise protected. I feel like my victim should die, I am of the opinion that my victim should die, I know that I am acting with extreme recklessness, etc…
Now ignoring murder, explain to me the fraud and perjury “thought crimes.”
Just another reason for schools to stick to readin, writin, and rithmatic.
actus
It’s subtle, but intent and motive are legally different.
In filing charges, the DA considers “intent” in deciding the degree and if that “intent” can be proved in the courtroom with direct and circumstancial evidence.
The DA is under no legal obligation to prove motive, indeed, s/he doesn’t even have to present a motive at all.
But s/he will because juries are made up of human beings and we all want to know “why”.
When a car slowly trolls a neighborhood, stops, and neighbors watch as a guy gets out, walks across the street, pulls out a gun and pumps several shots into a man standing outside his home, then turns, walks back to his car and drives off… We know the INTENT to murder is there even if at the time we don’t know what MOTIVATES the murderer.
The law deals with intent, not motive. Most hate crime legislation makes some motives illegal and not others.
oops… sorry for the double post, La Shawn, but I was using the “popup comment window” and it looked like my first response to actus never posted.
DS,
I can think any number of things about any number of people and they dont always have to be good thoughts and not once is that a crime …. the act of thinking AND acting on those thoughts is what constitutes the pre-meditated crime not the thoughts themselves … or the content of those thoughts.
“It’s subtle, but intent and motive are legally different.”
I don’t rely on any intent/motive distinction. I rely on intent being a mental state, a thought.
And since the definition of murder posted by Dark Star includes “malice”, why bother to establish a category of “hate crime”.
DS is applying Jesus’ standard when he says intent is the crime. Just like Jimmy Carter “lusted in his heart” and would be guilty of adultery.
Oops, that would be actus, not DS.
Pre-meditated murder is different in prosecution than involuntary manslaughter because of the “intent”. The wording explains itself. We do not need laws for “hate crimes” because laws already on the books cover the crime itself. Take the events in Texas of that man drug to death. Yes, it was a crime generated by the hate filled men, but the crime was murder. Controlling “thoughts” is a socialist/liberal way of wanting things done and if allowed, thinking about running a red light is going to under up being a felony.
Fraud, perjury, and murder are not crimes while they are only considered (thought). When the actions to deceive or kill are taken, they become crimes.
I think the latter is true Miss Barber, that those who are presupposed to agree with the hate crime laws will not will seem to not understand, it is the same as those who hold to Atheistic/evolutionary ideas, they just don’t want to get it.
La Shawn:
Good luck with the new domain. Fake hate crimes may or may not be small in number when compared to real ones (I do not know), but when frauds are exposed it has the effect of wrinkling the noses of most Americans. People do not like to be deceived, and react negatively when they are.
Your post touches on some big issues. The whole concept of “hate” crimes needs more examination that it usually gets. If a woman kills her philandering husband, is that a hate crime? How is that murder different from murdering a man because he is gay? Does writing racist graffiti on the wall of a school building constitute a hate crime? Would graffiti slandering teachers also qualify? Do we really want to create and enforce a body of laws when the concept of hate crime itself is so nebulous?
Here’s a couple hoax hate crimes involving Muslims:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/315
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2042
Pat’sRick wrote: “And since the definition of murder posted by Dark Star includes ‘malice’, why bother to establish a category of ‘hate crime’.”
“Malice” in law does not have the same meanings as it does in everyday use. For example, here’s an entry in Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Malice,” in its common acceptation, means ill will towards some person. In its leagal sense, it applies to a wrongful act done intentionally, without legal justification or excuse. Dunn. v. Hall, 1. Ind. 344.
In this legal sense, “malice” has nothing to do with “hate” or “ill will.” Here’s another Black’s Law Dictionary entry:
“Malice” in law is not necessarily personal hate or ill will, but it is that state of mind which is reckless of law and of the legal rights of the citizen. Evers-Jordan Furniture co v. Hartzog. 237 Ala. 407, 187 So. 491, 493.
One can argue whether hate should or should not be an additional factor in determining how we punish a criminal, but it would be a mistake to infer from the word “malice” in the definition of a crime that hate is already implicit in the definition of that crime.
Is a “hate” crime different from a “normal” crime? As an isolated incident, not really. If you get beaten up whilst walking home one evening, it doesn’t really matter whether your assailants are screaming “die poof”, “die nigger” or if they just decided that you shouldn’t own your wallet any more.
The real difference comes when the same individual, or group of individuals are repeatedly subject to attacks. Again, it really doesn’t matter if you’re getting repeated beatings because you’re gay, black, white, or just the geeky kid at school that nobody likes very much.
Just as we (rightly) view a series of crimes committed by the same person as more serious than the sum of the isolated events, so we should view a series of crimes committed against the same person or group of people as more serious than had those crimes been more fairly shared around the general population.
So a gang of kids throwing rocks through one old lady’s window every day is a “worse” crime than had they picked on a different house each day.
La Shawn Barber wrote “So-called hate crimes criminalize thoughts…” and others have said the same thing in different words.
This is incorrect, as can be seen by this example. Jim hates homosexuals, but does not act on the hate. Tim hates homosexuals, and punches Brian in the nose because Brian is a homosexual. On another occasion, Slim also punches Brian on the nose, this occasion being an attempt to steal Brian’s wallet. Slim is not aware of Brian’s orientation.
Now if La Shawn’s claim “So-called hate crimes criminalize thoughts…” were true, Jim could be prosecuted for hating homosexuals. But since Jim committed no other crime, Jim would not be prosecuted. Tim would be punished for punching Brian in the nose, and if this were prosecuted as a hate crime, the penalty would be harsher as provided in the hate crime legislation. Slim would be tried for attemted robbery and for punching Brian in the nose, but there would not be any exacerbating factor of hate in this case.
We can debate whether it’s sound public policy to increase Tim’s punishment because of his hate. But it is preposterous to argue that hate crime legislation criminalizes thoughts. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, it uses state of mind as an additional factor in judging how we treat a crime.
State of mind is a factor in many crimes. For example, possession of cocaine is a crime. Possession of cocaine with the intent to sell is another crime with steeper penalties. The jury has to assess the state of mind of the defendant and judge if that state of mind included “intent to sell” or not. The various degrees of manslaughter or murder depend on the state of mind of the perpetrator. State of mind enters jurisprudence a lot. There is widespread public support for using hate as a factor in punishing crime. You are entitled to disagree with that, but to say that hate crime legislation criminalizes thoughts is preposterous, as I have demonstrated here.
Anomalocaris
“Criminalizing thoughts” is, indeed, too generalized. However, what has happened is that such legislation has politicized certain crimes.
Great, Anom. It’s “preposterous” because you’ve “demonstrated” that it is. I know how to pull ‘em in, don’t I? You have a poor understanding of “state of mind,” and hate crime only increases the misunderstanding and misapplication.
What I’ve learned in a year-and-a-half of blogging is that saying something is true doesn’t make it true. And I’d LOVE to see a cite for “widespread public support for using hate as a factor in punishing crime.”
La Shawn,
I remember back in November when I first started commenting you quickly converted me on the whole hate crimes thing.
You are correct. We should not be prosecuting people who hate. Only those who commit criminal acts. Hate’s a disgusting thing, but judging people’s THOUGHTS instead of actions is pretty darn dangerous.
We shouldn’t be prosecuting racist killers because they’re racist. We should be prosecuting them because they’re killers!
I’d be interested in seeing the result of a “hate crime” prosecution that could not have been accomplished with other laws already in existence.
Hate crime laws are silly, in the final analysis. John kills Harry. Under normal law, John is convicted of first degree murder. Under hate crime law, he is convicted of first degree murder plus being a doodoo head. Meanwhile, Harry is still in the same exact stage of decomposition. Substance loses, fluff and nonsense wins.
I don’t rely on any intent/motive distinction. I rely on intent being a mental state, a thought.
Well, all I can say is that I am glad you are neither a lawyer nor a judge, actus. If you cannot divorce intent from motive… actually, that may explain quite a bit.
I’ve noticed this among many people, the notion that intentions are more important than outcomes.
Oh…BTW, Sam?
If a group starts targeting another group or individual, they can be prosecuted (in addition to the specific instance of the crimes) for criminal conspiracy.
And if the group is a gang, there are special enhancements and allegations for committing crime as a member of a gang or for the gang’s benefit.
“Let’s say I, a black person, set you on fire because you’re black and I hate black people, even though I’m black. In addition to other criminal laws broken, is it also a hate crime”
of course. Why not?
“Fraud, perjury, and murder are not crimes while they are only considered (thought). When the actions to deceive or kill are taken, they become crimes. ”
Just like hate crimes.
“But it is preposterous to argue that hate crime legislation criminalizes thoughts. It does nothing of the sort.”
I have a bone to pick: I think it criminalizes thought to the extent we already do, and have done, for a long time. We don’t live in the land of strict liability.
LB, as I have stated before, I don’t support the idea of “hate crimes” BUT I do note that the argument against additional penalties for “hate crimes” as “thought crimes” doesn’t make logical sense to me. That’s why I brought up murder.
Here’s another example: conspiracy.
If I set up a company and use fraud to get your money, I am responsible, not my accountant who didn’t know anything about it. If my accountant is aware of the fraud and helps out by shielding my theft, both of us are now subject conspiracy charges as well.
That’s also an issue of thought.
DS, you’re still talking about intent. This is what happens when a bunch of non-lawyers start philosophizing on what they think something should mean rather than knowing or finding out what the elements of a particular crime are. The same thing happens whenever I make a biblical argument. Instead of responding with a biblical answer, they rely on what they feel or how they think something should be. Not that you’ve done that. I’m just saying…
“The mental state of a perpetrator is an important element in a crime like attempted murder, but the focus is on whether he planned or intended to kill the victim, not what he thinks or feels about the victim. Our “feelings†or opinions about people are not subject to penalty. I think I need to write a well-researched op-ed and/or direct you toward legal papers on the subject. Perhaps I’m not explaining the concept very well, or perhaps those who favor hate crimes are too biased to understand it. – LaShawn”
To reduce the concept of “hate crime” down to policing thought is a legal and logical fallacy…
I initially was opposed to hate crime legislation but research the intent of the law, and the rationality of the law makers, now I am in between…
The last thread on this subject, I proved by using statistics that whites make up a substantive percentage of Hate Crime reports…so this eliminates the argument that “hate crimes” don’t apply to whites. If you want to see the stats, which I won’t post again, go to the FBI website.
Second, it is not “legislating” thought. It is legislating what the intended affect of the crime is and the effect it can have on community, which is the basic premise for any criminal legislation, to preserve the well-being of the community. Hate crime, which is defined legally in New York (and similar elsewhere) as:
“The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts involv-
ing violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon bias
and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in recent
years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and
justly referred to as “hate crimes”, victims are intentionally selected,
in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin,
ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexu-
al orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and
welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical
and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society.
Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only
harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and
discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs.
Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and
vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes.
In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the
beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on
account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to
public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore,
our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravi-
ty of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their
recurrence.”
The basic premise (similar to terrorism legislation) is that hate crime’s IMPACT exceeds the the IMPACT on the community in a greater way than the act not based soley on bias would have therefore legislation against it should be harsher. Logically this makes sense. However, since I am on the fence about hate crime, I would like to see more studies that actually show hate crime diminishing because of legislation.
The key point, making it not a thought crime is that the victim is INTENTIONALLY chosen specifically because of race (disability, religion or sexuality). For it to be a hate crime this HAS to be proven.
One last point, strict liability as an individual mentioned above, is where simply the crime is prosecuted. If our legal system was based exclusively on this, you would eliminate many forms of criminal legislation, most importantly one which the majority of you support, Terrorism bills.
With terrorist, you evaluate intent, is this not legislating thought? Something to think about.
Dell
So some victims are more equal than others?
Yes, that sounds facetious, but unfortunately that’s what the fuzzy thinking of NY legislature is saying. IE if one is targeted for being “gay”, the victim is afforded extra protection under the law, if the victim is targeted for being a prostitute, then they are not.
We know there are criminals that prey upon certain demographics due to their vulnerability… prostitutes, the poor, the elderly, the young … yet we don’t treat these as “hate” crimes “tearing at the fabric of society.”
“Invidious hate” must be confronted and not tolerated, but the is the perview of society, not the Law. We can enhance crime that is committed with the INTENT to terrorize (in California PC422 deals with ‘terrorist’ threats, but they are not restricted to any particular ‘protected’ class of person.)
IMHO, those most support of “hate” crime legislation are those that have substituted the Legal for The Moral — that if an act is legal it must be ok. They can’t seem to grasp that there is plenty of instances of immorality that the Law should rightly steer clear of.
Prosecutors already have the necessary means to punish citizens for reprehensible acts against particular groups. This is in the area of how the accused are charged, and how the convicted are punished. The whole purpose of distinguishing between misdemeanor and felony, 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree crimes, and sentencing guidelines are to utilize such things as intent and motive at trial. Guidelines already existed!!!
” If you cannot divorce intent from motive… actually, that may explain quite a bit.”
Motive is certainly probitive of intent. Who’s divorcing what now?
“I’ve noticed this among many people, the notion that intentions are more important than outcomes.”
I don’t know about more important, but you do need both the act and the intent. If I cause someone’s death my particular crime (murder 1, manslaughter etc..) or even innocence depends on my mental state.
LB: “This is what happens when a bunch of non-lawyers start philosophizing on what they think something should mean rather than knowing or finding out what the elements of a particular crime are”
maybe in the future you could post a hate-crime statute for us to discuss instead of assuming things like how the race of the victim or perp matters or has to be different.
Intent and motive are two entirely different things. If you can prove intent, what you’ve proven is that the person PLANNED the crime before committing it. In our laws, that justifies a stiffer sentence than an act of “passion”.
If you can prove motive, you’ve proved the REASON the person committed the crime. People are not convicted for their reasoning, but for their acts. People are often PUNISHED more severely because of their reasons for committing the ACT which was illegal, but nothing in the law requires that.
Hate crime legislation attempts to criminalize MOTIVE, not INTENT. To understand why they are useless laws, one need merely posit a situation where someone has the MOTIVE to commit a crime (perhaps even the intent) and yet never commits the crime.
What are they guilty of? Nothing, because without the ACT, the MOTIVE is moot.
If you search the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, you will not find a single mention of motive in the code. If you search for intent, you will find many. Explain that, and you go a long way toward understanding why hate crime legislation is useless. (Incidentally, the only mention of “hate crime” in the code is the requirement of court officers to report them to the federal government.)
Guys like actus and Anomalocaris know this. They just don’t want to admit it, because to admit it would remove the only reason for the existence of hate crime legislation.
Anomalocaris speaks at length about how motive ( which is what so-called hate “crimes” attempt to criminalize) can change the PUNISHMENT of a convicted criminal, but that is not the CRIME. If you want hate to be a factor of punishment, then it should be a “special circumstance” just as using a weapon during a robbery is or as kidnapping and killing someone is.
Juries frequently weigh the motives of a person when deciding the punishment. Nothing wrong with that. But hate, in and of itself, is not a crime and nowhere in the US is anyone tried for a hate crime. They’re tried for the ACT, and it’s CALLED a hate crime to make it seem more heinous and to make people feel good.
As it is now, hate “crimes” are simply an attempt to get around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy by giving prosecutors a second bite at the apple, (just as the Rodney King trial did. The officers were first tried in state court, then in federal because the powers that be didn’t like the outcome of the first trial.)
But mixing motive into the elements of a crime is a slippery slope. As LaShawn so ably points out, it’s an attempt to criminalize thought.
Darleen:
If me and my buddies sit around plotting to go out and beat up some gays, prostitutes or whatever, we can indeed be prosecuted for conspiracy.
If, on the other hand, me and my buddies sit around talking about how prostitutes are dragging down the neighbourhood and that something should be done, and then over the next few days each of us beats up a prostitute, there has been no conspiracy.
If I was a prostitute, it wouldn’t matter much to me which of the above two scenarios had actually happened – I’d only care that suddenly a bunch of prostitutes had been beaten up, and so would probably be feeling pretty scared.
And yes, that does mean that I don’t see a difference between a “hate crime” targetting blacks or gays and a “hate crime” targetting prostitutes, rich people, republicans or bloggers.
The difference, as I see it, is in the hate, not in whether the victim happens to belong to a protected group. So if you beat someone up because you hate queers/blacks/the rich/whatever, I would see you punished more severely than if you beat someone up because you want his wallet.
So is it possible to have “love crimes” as in, “Grandma, I really love you but I’ll love the money I inherit after I’ve killed you a whole lot more.” or “Wifey, I really love you but I love my new girlfriend a whole lot more?”
“The difference, as I see it, is in the hate, not in whether the victim happens to belong to a protected group.”
groups aren’t protected. Categories are.
La Shawn, your new domain is a great idea and i wish you all the best.
To sum up this whole monkey business (oops, I better watch that “monkey” thought — I can still recall that pain of being dragged by the ear to the principal’s office for calling a classmate a “gorilla” :O )
You have the right to think whatever you want. Your right to act on it ends where my nose begins.
If we insist on retaining “hate crimes” then I want to see that 6′+ healthy, buff, young black dude that was caught on surveillence video viciously punching, IIRC, an 80 year old bag lady in broad daylight for her money prosecuted for gerontoism (hate of old age)
If “mental state” is allowed to come into it, then it just means an easier road to an insanity plea, and the avoidance of jail time.
Everyone’s insane these days. They’re all on anti-anxiety medication and can’t possibly be held responsible for their own actions.
DIFFERENT TOPIC: (Sorry!)
Has anyone checked out Arianna Huffington’s new blog site? According to the Drudge Report it’s a big flop. I’m just bored silly with her and her site. She actually makes Kos and Yglesias look good.
“If “mental state†is allowed to come into it, then it just means an easier road to an insanity plea, and the avoidance of jail tim”
Insanity pleas are part of the intent / mens rea. Very hard to show i’ve heard.
Protecting “categories” or “groups” is the same thing. Protecting a category creates a protected class or group if an individual fits the category.
So much for “equal protection” of the law.
Another one for the scrapbook — 2000 “hate crime” hoax perpetrated by U of Iowa dental student Tarsha Claiborne.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment042700c.html
More recently: Trinity College (Bannockburn,IL) student Alicia Hardin stages fake hate crime, uncovered April 27.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-trinity27.html
One argument for hate crime laws is that harsher punishments are needed to deter them. If you commit a hate crime, a) it shows you don’t believe that it’s wrong to commit crimes against members of that particular group, and b) you may be trying to encourage others to commit similar crimes.
I’m not sure how this holds up legally, but it’s an argument I don’t think has been mentioned yet.
-James
At what point does a trend in violent acts against people who share a common marker (gay, from a particular ethnicity, etc.) synergize with incitement/promotion of the pattern of acts? In other words, I’m interested to find out whether we’ve seen trends in particular kinds of crimes (smash-and-grab, mugging the elderly, attacking prostitutes) which rose further after having strong media coverage. If media coverage is not an instrumental stimulating factor, then there are surely others. For example, in an area where you suddenly have an influx of new settlers from a particular place (like, in eastern Europe when they had a lot of non-Europeans coming in), there may be a rise in crimes involving those folks (which may or may not be above the historical per capita average). Or, if my town starts to get more and more transvestites, there may be a lot of mean people who want to attack them for being weird. Should we spend government/municipality money to educate the masses and campaign against these crime patterns? I think if it’s geared to address crimes by and against _all_ people, then some money would be well spent. I believe that hate crimes do occur. But enforcement and prevention should NOT propagate the mentality of hate crimes. Don’t give the creeps something of which to be proud. The main message should be that crime doesn’t pay, and if you do a crime, you will do the time.
“Protecting “categories†or “groups†is the same thing.”
No. we protect the category of race, not the group of the white race, for example. do you see the difference?
“Protecting a category creates a protected class or group if an individual fits the category.”
We’re all in the categories. We all have a sexual orientation [category] but we’re not all heterosexuals [group].
La Shawn write: “I’d LOVE to see a cite for ‘widespread public support for using hate as a factor in punishing crime.’
Here are some citations:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm
The Gallup Organization asked the question: “If a hate law were enacted in your state, which of the following groups do you think should be covered?… Homosexuals” Results were: 1999-Feb: 75% favor protection.
Zogby International and Hamilton College in New York conducted a nation-wide Hamilton College Gay Issues Poll. It involved a random sampling of 1,000 “class of 2001” high school seniors. 2 Margin of error is 3%. Results were released in 2001-AUG-27.
88% supported anti hate-crime legislation to protect gays and lesbians.
And the Gallup organization also confirms my claim.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=4057
“There is strong majority support among all Americans for the idea of enacting a hate crime law in their state.” (One has to pay to read the article and get the percentages.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=3943
Headline: Americans Support Hate Crimes Legislation That Protects Gays (One has to pay to read the article and get the percentages.)
These citations were found with under five minutes’ searching in the Internet. I’m sure I could find more in a few more minutes.
I’m not a category member, nor a group member, in the context of mushy-thinking hate crime gobbledegook. I’m just a human being, thank you very much.
LaShawn,
Perhaps you could make your point clearer with the following analogy, one that Anomalocaris conveniently forgot; but which is feature of nearly every hate crime trial.
Suppose Jim beats up Tom. Suppose at the trial, the prosecutor, seeking to provide the jury with a motive, even though she’s not required to, the following evidence is submitted:
A Google search that Jim has a website where he says that being gay is against God and is an abomination to society. In fact, he rants about it on his site – repeatedly.
Now suppose Tom is Gay – flamboyantly so. But also suppose Jim claims he didn’t know Tom’s true sexual orientation (unless you’ve actually had sex with the person, how could you know for sure?)
Would it be all that difficult for Tom to claim that he is the victim of a hate crime?
Wouldn’t Jim then have to PROVE that he didn’t know Tom was gay to avoid the harsher penalty?
Would Jim be deprived of his religious freedoms?
That’s really the problem I see with hate crimes legislation. It puts the burden of proof on the perpetrator to prove a negative. And in our system of jurisprudence, the perpetrator should never have to prove anything.
That’s the state’s role.
I sympathise with this point of view but I’m not sure that the distinction between ‘intent’ and ‘motive’ can always be maintained. Chopping off a person’s arm could be two different crimes (attempted murder, or grievous bodily harm) according to whether the intent was that the victim should die of blood loss or not. Similarly, murdering a person would be murder or attempted genocide according to whether killing this person was or was not part of a concerted attempt to wipe out all the members of the person’s cultural group. The latter is a more serious crime. And if intentional participation in genocide is more serious an individually-motivated murder, why can’t graffiti with the intent to intimidate a group be, under some circumstances, more serious than graffiti with the intent to intimidate an individual? Should the pretence that it never is be elevated to an inviolable principle?
Some folks will do ANYTHING to get their 15 minutes. Sheesh.
Here we go again. Lashawn I think you struck idealogical gold with this vein. And I think that you have uncovered a “schism” that I hadn’t noticed before.
My idea is that the folks who argue that their version of “hate crimes” must be prosecuted are the same folks who argue for”reparations for slavery.” The late Johnnie Cochran (sp) had been working on this for the last few years. They are laying the groundwork now for HUGE suits in the near future.
I may be wrong on this, but I’d like to know how all the “hate crime” enthusiasts feel about this plan to to transfer billions to the descendants of people who were slaves? I think this goes hand in hand with the idea of punishing thought.
I’m reminded of a Lyndon Johnson quote, from when the first Federal anti-lynching law was put before congress. “I was under the impression”, he said, “that murder was already against the law…”
His point of course was that lynching was not the consequence of inadequate law, but inadequate prosecution. Police departments and local prosecutors were simply not going after the perpetrators. What Congress did, though, was to effectivly federalize the crime of murder in certain circumstances, allowing the Justice depatrtment to take over the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
They also invented a new crime- violating someone’s civil rights- as a way of getting aorund the double jeapordy protection of the Constitution. You might be aquitted by a jury of Klansmen, but the Feds could put you away for 20 years on the same crime. How you feel about that depends on how much of an absolutest you are about the Bill of Rights. The ACLU, normally a staunch defender of most of the Bill of Rights, didn’t have a problem with it.
Today’s hate crime laws are of a different nature. No one is claiming that those who murder or harass members of various groups are getting the free walk that lynchers did in the old South (and old west, and old North). Instead, this is an example of Congress pandering by creating, as some have said, a new class of thought crimes that require felons to be punished for their motivations. Now some have noted that the law allows the court to take into consideration certain intents- a pre-planned murder is deemed more heinous than one comitted on the spur of the moment, and accidental murders are less heinous than purposive ones. This is intended to account for what are believed to be aspects of human nature.
If the purpose of the law is to discourage anti-social acts, then perhaps the courts should indeed create stronger sanctions for those who kill for hire than those who kill in the heat of the moment. Of course the result, to the victim, is the same; the person with a violent temper and homicidal inclinations is as much a danger to society as the hired killer, and just as much a danger when released from prison. So why do we treat their crimes differently?
And so it is with “hate crimes”. Acts that may be consider vandalism under ordinary law- spray painting someone’s house- are suddenly elevated to the status of Federal offenses. But what’s the difference if you come home to find a racial epithet or simply an obscenity on your garage door? Either way the sanctity of your home has been violated.
Anti-social people can always find a reason to hate someone. He’s Black/Gay/Chinese/Crippled/A geek/Funny looking/Male/Republican/A Bicyclist. Perhaps we’re all members of minorities, and every crime is a hate crime.
Curious what distinction, if any, you would make between hate crime statutes and enhanced sentencing and other laws that up the ante on crimes such as murder of a witness, murder for hire, murder of a judge, federal officer, fireman, policeman, etc.?
“I’m not a category member, nor a group member, in the context of mushy-thinking hate crime gobbledegook. I’m just a human being, thank you very much.”
Another important thing is that it doesn’t matter what you actually are or what you think you are. It matters what the perp thinks you are.
“t puts the burden of proof on the perpetrator to prove a negative. ”
No. All elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt be the prosecution.
“The ACLU, normally a staunch defender of most of the Bill of Rights, didn’t have a problem with it.”
I would think that a protector of civil rights would want the violation of someone’s civil right to be criminalized.
“Perhaps we’re all members of minorities, and every crime is a hate crime.”
The protected status is not just to minorities.
So, if I hate speed limits, should my ticket cost me more money? What about if I hate the local newspaper and vandalize the vending machine containing it? What about hating an amorphous group such as ‘people who look at me funny’? If I smack the crap out of someone who ‘looks at me funny’, should my punishment be more extensive than if I just smack the crap out of someone randomly?
Hate crimes are already crimes. That’s like saying that if you commit murder on a Tuesday, you get a higher penalty. It’s stupid. If the penalties for murder aren’t already high enough, talk about making them higher overall. Why should only some people enjoy special protection? What about people that hate me because of my outspoken condemnation of their views? What if you hate people that commit ‘hate crimes’ and go out killing them? Yes, I’m being absurd here, but no more than you people defending ‘hate crimes’.
I have Irish blood. I demand to have Irish heritage deemed a protected class (or status, or whatever) due to the unfair stereotyping of Irish people as drunks, plus the fact that my ancestors were forced to toil on the railroads and couldn’t go into “respectable” establishments. I need to become a victim based upon my heritage.
If that won’t work, I’ll try to use my French blood for the purpose. I deserve to be victimized for that, but that’s another thread topic all its own.
Or maybe Hoosiers can be a protected class. We get routinely abused by Illinois people. Yeah, that’s it!
p-dawg: “Hate crimes are already crimes. ”
I don’t think those crimes attach to any commonly protected categories.
“I demand to have Irish heritage deemed a protected class ”
I have no idea where you’ll get it. Classes aren’t protected. Categories are. It wouldn’t surprise me if national origin was one of them.
Anyone remember the 2000 election when they tried to tar Bush with the fact that a black man had been murdered by a couple of racists in Texas (I think his first name was James, and it involved him being dragged behind a pickup truck). They conveniently overlooked the fact that horrible, racist Texas, handed down the death penalty for the two murderers. And without the benefit of a hate crimes prosecution no less. In fact, knowing Texas, it’s entirely possible the two a-holes were already dead by the time the campaign came around. Good luck in your efforts LaShawn.
Actus, when was the FIRST time you heard of a Black being charged with a Hate Crime against a White?
““t puts the burden of proof on the perpetrator to prove a negative. â€
No. All elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt be the prosecution.”
No, the prosecution “in the example” ASSUMES that the defendant knew that the guy was gay. THE JURY decides weither this is reasonable or not. If the defendant can’t PROVE that he didn’t know the JURY will most likly accept the prosecutions ASSUMTION.
The prosecution may believe that the defendant didn’t know and still put it forth to help their case. If they hadn’t charged him with a Hate Crime the Judge might not have let them talk about the web site at all.
Hate Crime Laws let prosecutors bring in all sorts of “evidence” that would NEVER be allowed otherwise. What BOOKS, Web Pages, etc the defendant read or visited. What he SAID, having noting to do with this crime. Show that the defendant is a member of the KKK (you know one of the Groups it is ALRIGHT for people to HATE) and you can convict him of just about anything.
The problem with Hate Crimes isn’t that some criminals do more time. The PROBLEM is that this can be ABUSED to easily by prosecutors with an agenda.
Dan,
Exactly. Given this, I can only imagine what would happen if I were charged with a hate crime (I had a lawyer make that threat a few years ago, when I was burglarized). From a paper I wrote in college, I have a copy of Mein Kampf. I have some History Channel documentaries on WW2 that are (by nesc) Nazi-heavy. I’m bald and own a pair of Dr. Marten’s. I may still have a Butthole surfers cassette in a box from when I was a teen.
The hate laws in many jurisdictions have more witch hunt potential than the dreaded patriot act. And where do the anti-chritian liberal utopians side?
“Actus, when was the FIRST time you heard of a Black being charged with a Hate Crime against a White?”
First I don’t know. The FBI national hate crime statistics start in 1995. That year 2253 blacks were “known offenders.” I don’t think that these are all convictions. It doesn’t give the race of the victim. I think though that these are just reports, and not actual charges.
I’d like to see a dataset on the charges.
“Hate Crime Laws let prosecutors bring in all sorts of “evidence†that would NEVER be allowed otherwise. What BOOKS, Web Pages, etc the defendant read or visited. What he SAID, having noting to do with this crime.”
They’re circumstantial evidence that is probitive of whether a hate crime was committed. But I agree that reading materials should in general have very high protection from coming in as evidence. The right to read and write anonymously are very important.
Prosecutors can assume anything they want. They still need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actus, once again I ask what positive results derived from hate crime prosecutions could not be obtained through other existing laws?
“Actus, once again I ask what positive results derived from hate crime prosecutions could not be obtained through other existing laws? ”
The reasoning, as far as I know, is that we punish more culpbable behavior more harshly.
Round and round we go, back to the business of assigning certain criminals more culpability than others for committing the same crime just because they are mean spirited.
How will this help anything or anyone?
“Round and round we go, back to the business of assigning certain criminals more culpability than others for committing the same crime just because they are mean spirited.”
Thats one of the basic ideas of criminal law, to punish culpable behavior. The “same crime” of homicide is punished more harshly if i’m mean spirited and had the intent to kill rather than if i’m just careless and killed due to negligence.
As a former long time criminal defense attorney I struggled with the concept of “hate crimes” for a long time. I have come to the conclusion however, that such laws are in fact justified. For the reasons, I quote David Neiwert from Orcinus who is far more eloquent than I: “Are hate crimes truly different from their parallel crimes? Quantifiably and qualitatively, the answer is yes.”
“The first and most clear aspect of this difference lies in the breadth of the crimes’ effects. Hate crimes attack not only the immediate victim, but the target community — Jews, blacks, gays — to which the victim belongs. Their purpose today, just as it was in the lynching era, is to terrorize and politically oppress the target community. The laws against them resemble anti-terrorism laws (which, it must be noted, are also predicated on enhancing the sentence based on the motivation of the perpetrator) in this respect as well.”
“But this is only one aspect of how different hate crimes are from their parallel crimes. There are several more, and they are substantial. Bias crimes are far more likely to be violent than are other crimes. They also may be distinguished by their extraordinary impact on the victim. As bias-crimes expert Frederick Lawrence notes, ‘Bias-crime victims have been compared to rape victims in that the physical harm associated with the crime, however great, is less significant than the powerful accompanying sense of violation. The victims of bias crimes thus tend to experience psychological symptoms such as depression or withdrawal, as well as anxiety, feelings of helplessness, and a profound sense of isolation.’” For the rest of the piece please see,
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/01/should-we-repeal-hate-crimes-laws.html
The “same crime†of homicide is punished more harshly if i’m mean spirited and had the intent to kill rather than if i’m just careless and killed due to negligence
That’s two crimes. One is murder, one is manslaughter (or negligent homicide, depends on where you live). Homicide, in and of itself, is not illegal. Manslaughter and murder are a measurement of responsibility, not intent or motive. Within the two crimes, intent is a factor (murder 1 = deliberate, premeditated design, murder 2 = intent without deliberation, etc)
A murderer, who set out to kill someone, is completely resonsible for the act. The owner of a improperly maintained machine that causes a human death, while responsible, is less so.
What seperates the two crimes? Malice and premeditation. If you have either, you have murder. Which makes all murders a hate crime. (murder without malice is the provenance of professional killers and psychopaths, which I think the former is just paid subset of the latter).
If I plan to murder you, and do so, it is murder 1. If I do not have a specific plan, but take the opportunity to do so, that is murder 2. If I accidentally run you over with my truck, and it is shown that it was my fault, it is manslaughter. If it is not my fault (you were pushed, jumped, hiding under a dark cloth, I dunno [just in case, avoid bald men in blue pickemups]), it’s still homicide, but not a crime on my part.
Motive, btw, is moot. It is a construct investigators use to find a perpetrator, just like profiling; without evidence, both are worthless in US courts. A lawyer may try to use motive to sway a jury, but motive alone is never enough to even get a warrant (unless you have corrupt/incompetent judges)
Have any of you pondered these possible scenarios regarding hate crime legislation:
1. Hate crime legislation does not exist as a deterrent for further hate crime, but purely as retributive punishment.
2. This retributive punishment exists to satisfy a) guilt for past wrongs (segregation, Jim Crow, et al) and b) specific interest and voting groups.
Even though hate crime legislation does punish those who commit crimes against whites too, are we really naive to believe that this legislation was created for all? This was created at the behest of specific interest groups.
It may say equal protection on its face, but there is nothing equal in its creation.
If the moral repugnance of the crime requires harsh punishment, there already existed means to exact that punishment. That is the role of prosecutors asking for charges and sentencing in relation to the repugnance of the crime.
More legislation and government is not the solution to the problem. Better and more aggresive prosecution is.
Dave M-
You present an interesting argument, but let’s ask this question:
What is more terrorizing or oppressive to the African-American and Hispanic communities: gang activity/organized crime and drug dealing/use or potential crime committed because of race?
While it may not speak to Jews, Gays, etc., am I wrong in suggesting that there are potentially greater issues to be addressed than this within those two communities?
I know the kids at my school are terrorized more by the stray bullet of a gang members AK-47 than any white man with hate in his heart. And I definitely know kids at my school fear being oppressed for not joining a gang than they are of any white man, anywhere, anytime.
Dave M.:
That may have some validity if in fact there was an abiding spate of violence against certain groups (Blacks, Jews, what have you), when in fact, in this nation, there is not. Nor, in fact, has there ever been in this nation (the truth).
The reality is that these “Hate Crimes” are for the protection (and a dubious protection, at that) of ONLY certain groups; and, in essence, hateful in itself in the people who are the intended TARGET of hate-crime legislation.
Far more obvious is the effect on real liberty (free speech and free association) inasmuch as these things tend to creep upwards in size and scope. I direct the gentle reader to Canada, where church pastors have been prosecuted under the self-same “hate crimes” statutes in that nation.
I’ll try to address 2 posts in one:
First Chris – Gang violence is a problem in some areas and in fact, in California there are specific laws much like hate crime legislation that impose penal consequences for gang activity and specific crime enhancements when crimes are committed as part of gang activity. I would imagine, many other states and jurisdictions have the same type of statutes on the books. In fact, I would be surprised if they did not.
Mark: I would be interested in seeing where you get your information since the data I am aware of shows that hate crimes have been increasing. I know there is always a controversy on how such such data is collected and what it really means. Be that as it may, the implications for hate crimes as set forth by Mr. Neiwert suggests to me that passing such legislation is worth it in the long run.
“That’s two crimes. One is murder, one is manslaughter (or negligent homicide, depends on where you live).”
I know. Just hate crimes are different than others. you assume the conclusion when you say that its “the same crime”
“If the moral repugnance of the crime requires harsh punishment, there already existed means to exact that punishment.”
Ya. The law that says that morally repugnant hate crimes are punished that way.
“The reality is that these “Hate Crimes†are for the protection (and a dubious protection, at that) of ONLY certain groups; and, in essence, hateful in itself in the people who are the intended TARGET of hate-crime legislation.”
I’d really love to see some statistics on this. The FBI keeps track of reported incidents, but not indictments or convictions.
I have seen the replies to me, but I am rather minded to respond to that directed at Mr. Roberts…
“Gang violence is a problem in some areas and in fact, in California there are specific laws much like hate crime legislation that impose penal consequences for gang activity”
Oh, and has this ended the Gang problem in California, or even had a significant impact? I’d wager not, but that is the whole problem with the mentality that all of these social ills (real or imagined) can be solved through additional legislation. Legislation which only serves to weaken free association and free speech — and I’m beginning to believe that this is what the power-brokers are after all along, the diminution of criticism of themselves or of anything that is of the unpopular kind.
Dave-
That’s fine that legislation exists, the same is here in Texas. My question, rhetorical as it may be, has been this: doesn’t the greater threat to at least two of the protected groups come from within?
I am not making excuses for disgusting behavior of hateful individuals, however I fail to see the logic of some that argue that without hate crime legislation, we are destined to return to the days of Kluckers, burning crosses, bombed churches, attack dogs and fire hoses.
And to return to my earlier post, I want to state that I agree with Eugene Volokh and others who make the case for retributive sentencing/punishment being morally just. Maybe on that one point alone, hate crime legislation has some validity to it. I could accept arguments in favor more if those groups would come out and admit that retribution does play a part in their desire for hate crime legislation.
Here’s a novel thought. How about protecting society by strenuously enforcing the laws already on the books? You know, respecting the rights of the law-abiding for a change, instead of expending all our efforts fawning over the poor downtrodden criminals. How about putting the bad guys away for the amount of time they really should be out of society, and stopping the early release/recidivism scandal? If the bad guys aren’t out among us, they can hardly kill, maim, rape, pillage and destroy, now can they?
Oh, I know, that’s just so mean spirited of me. Sorry.
“You know, respecting the rights of the law-abiding for a change, instead of expending all our efforts fawning over the poor downtrodden criminals.”
Who’s expending all your efforts doing this?
That would be the liberal judicial system. You know, like the people who let little Jessica Lundsford’s murderer out of prison early so he could kill her.
“You know, like the people who let little Jessica Lundsford’s murderer out of prison early so he could kill her.”
Not familiar with the case. How was he released? Was it something extraordinary to the system or was he being treated normally?
fake hate incedents how many times has it happened? it looks like some one is trying to get some attention for some cuase or manybe to get the liberal left-wing news media to pay some attention
Actus:
The piece of human debris who killed 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford is someone who should never have been on the street. 24 arrests for such things as burglary, carrying a concealed weapon, disorderly conduct, drunk driving, drug possession, and larceny. Arrested for assaulting a young girl in the bedroom of the home he was burlarizing. Convicted of indecent exposure. Convicted of felony sex abuse against a child. Convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a 5-year-old child. Served only 4 years. As I understand it, he was in voilation of his parole when he killed Jessica.
Fake Holocaust survivor story
Excerpt: Head of Spanish survivor’s group faked his story Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 11, 2005
The head of a group of Spanish World War II concentration camp survivors has admitted after decades that he faked his story, saying he was never in any Nazi concentration camp.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1115777944886&p=1078113566627
It’s interesting to note what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say on Cross Burning. First, the immense shock was that the man said anything at all. Second, he went off-script and said THIS:
>>>The good news is this decision aroused Clarence Thomas into action with a “blistering” judicial dissent. He asserted, and rightfully so, that “cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims well-grounded fear of physical violence.” Certainly, cross burnings were, in many instances, a prelude to lynching in the Deep South. With the apparent resurgence of cross burnings across America, Thomas, the only black justice on the Supreme Court, took a stand by refusing to sign O’Connor’s opinion and by challenging the core of her brief that cross burnings should be protected as a First Amendment (free speech) right.
Additionally, in the 1998 James and Susan Jubilee’s (he’s black and she’s white) cross-burning incident, the Supreme Court on Monday, April 8, threw out the conviction of their neighbors who were the cross burners, and instructed the Virginia Supreme Court to determine if “the men intended to intimidate their neighbors.” The Virginia Supreme Court had already struck down the lower court ruling in favor of the Jubilees by relying on a 1992 U. S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down a law banning “cross burning intended to arouse anger in people based on race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Interestingly, the crux of this case is that the 25-foot cross was burned in the Jubilee’s yard in full view of their three children. In other words, the neighbors did not burn the cross in their yard! The cross burners, then, challenged the Virginia lower court ban on cross burning and won that decision on Monday, April 8.”
http://www.aces.edu/urban/metronews/vol2no3/cross.html
I cite this case not only for the irony of a man like Thomas breaking ranks with the conservative anti-hate crime agenda, but the case itself. Here we have an INTERRACIAL COUPLE being on the receiving end of the hate crime episode, which presents both a Black AND White victim.
Now, I’m sure there are some conservative African Americans out there like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jesse Lee Peterson or Gerald Reynolds who may find nothing unsettling about the prospect of neighbors burning a 25 foot high cross near their home. Hell, some of them might enjoy the extra reading light it might provide. But as for me, and most CONSCIOUS African-Americans, I would be aghast at the blatant, naked display of hate and intolerance. Since the USSC decided AGAINST Thomas on this one, the point is moot.
–Cobra
Comments on this entry are closed.