April 20, 2005
Earlier this month a disgusting apparent hate crime occurred in Everett:
"They wrote stuff like fag, whore, KKK, swastikas," Crissy explained. She's Caucasian and Washington is African American. "Maybe they didn't like the black and white together."
The perpetrators were caught on Monday: "Son, pals arrested after house trashed in Everett
A 16-year-old boy's alleged plan to make a burglary at his mother's house appear to be a hate crime backfired, according to police.
But some in the community are still calling it a "hate crime".
"We still very much consider this a hate crime," said Janet Pope, executive director of the Interfaith Association of Snohomish County. "The person acted out of hate and anger and used the symbols of a hate crime."
I agree with the Interfaith Association on this one. Of course it was a hate crime. Every crime is a hate crime.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 20, 2005
10:37 AM | Email This
1. That's why I despise "hate crime" punishments -- you cannot read the minds of the criminals (their intent) and I think that trying extrapolate extra evil based on apparent "results" is not only impossible but unjust.
Let's be careful here, Stefan. I think you and I agree on this one, but I am not positive.
All crime is hate crime in that a crime can only be committed by a hateful person. That is what you mean, right? And that is a nice sentiment.
However, in reality, hate-crime laws are on the books. Hate crime is thought crime. Or at least, hate crime is "bonus points" tacked on to actual crime by the thought police.
Hate crime should be eliminated from the lawbooks. There is no need to consider inter-racial crime as more egregious (I taught myself how to spell it!) than same-race crime. Same goes for inter-gender crime.
I don't know if you agree with me or not, but I wanted to be clear on the subject.
3. Stefan--I agree; Punishment should be swift & sure in this case, as well as make an example of the alleged perps. I don't think we need excessive sub-categories of crimes like "hate" crimes. What then? Special sub-classes of victims? Now THAT'S equality for you! The penal code would swell to the size of the "legitimate" voter rolls in King County. Prevention of this starts in the home & schools with good family training (and not that silly Sim's-style "home training").
4. What's really interesting about this case is how quickly local Dem politicians threw themselves into strongly condemning the crime, despite the fact that the police were openly skeptical that there was any racial motivation. I'll have a post on that over at FOTW at some point...
Yeah, they'll (dems) glom onto anything racial (true or not) and run with it faster than a speeding bullet. Obviously these "thought police" laws need to be removed from the books. I especially love W's take on it, from one of the Presidential debates between him and Gore:
GORE [to Bush]: James Byrd was singled out because of his race in Texas. We can embody our values by passing a hate crimes law.
Q: You have a different view of that.
BUSH: No I donít, really. Weíve got a hate crime law in Texas and guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, theyíre going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. Itís going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death.
GORE: I guess I had misunderstood the governorís previous position. I had thought that there was a controversy at the end of the legislative session where the Byrd family among others asked you to support a hate crimes law, Governor. Am I wrong about that?
BUSH: What the Vice President must not understand is weíve got a hate crimes bill in Texas and secondly the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment, the death penalty. When you murder somebody, itís hate. Iím not exactly sure how you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty.
Amen to that, W....Amen. Perhaps the dems think we should torture people convicted of so-called "hate-crimes" before putting them to death? With all their whining and moaning about Abu Ghraib, I doubt that that's the case....as usual, they need to make up their minds.
Fact of the matter is the left wants it to remain a 'hate' crime as this serves their political purposes.
The fact that it was most certainly NOT a hate crime is immaterial.
Don't confuse them with facts!
7. 'Hate crimes' that involve defacing and vadalism are almost always staged by the 'victims' or people associated with them.
Lib thought running amok. Take one incident (or a perceived trend), add one knee-jerk reaction. In some way the incident goes against one of the lib-protected classes, therefore something simply must be done to heighten the awareness of the evil of the perp for committing an act even more heinous than a regular act.
Take that enhanced penalty and apply it to something that already has the maximum penalty, and it becomes hyperbole.
The problem is that the pc crowd does take it seriously.
If logic and consistency were an issue, they wouldnít be libs.
And whatís up with a domestic robbery being disguised as a hate crime, and when the real nature is revealed, Pope insists on still treating it as a hate crime? Did she think that bombing an aspirin factory really did do something appropriate? Reality means less to her than her feelings about the use of symbols.
Sheíd be fun to play hold 'em with, if she had a big stash.
Thatís not to say that itís inappropriate for the Council to help the couple as victims of a garden variety robbery and vandalism.
Yes, Don, it's true: all too often these over-the-top "hate" crimes involving spray-painted swastikas or cross burnings or effigy lynchings are committed by the "victims" in order to evoke sympathy or cover up something bad they had done themselves. There was another one just recently that turned out this way too.
It will soon get to where no one will take it serious anymore. The "boy cries wolf" scenario.
There seems to be alot of people crying wolf.
Is another example of PC crowd crying wolf and getting caught. As the story says, it only hurts the true victims. The only upside to it is that it shows this PC crowd's true colors to the world.
anyone else even notice that the original incident was headlined, leading story, etc, but the sudden truth is dumped way below the cutline, an "oh, by the way" on the local news, and certainly not on page 1???
BTW, anyone want to define a "love crime?"
Same "Hate Crime" type of reasoning in the WA Supreme Court ruling that assualt resulting in the death of the victim is not murder because the the intent to kill was absent.
We are periously close to thought crimes.
I didn't mean to kill him, I just pointed a gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Oh! That's okay as long as you didn't mean to kill him.
On the other hand. Say anything disparging, about any of the the protected classes and... off with your head.
How 'bout we judge actions and results.
There is a big problem with Hate Crime Legislation and the politically correct articles that mention hate crimes.
We don't need hate crime laws. We already have laws that punish crime. It's particularly insidious to be lured by the false sense that it's good to punish people for hate. As much as we all might find this punk to be a disgusting racist, there's nothing inherently wrong with hatred as long as it is not acted upon. There are all sorts of people who hate homosexuals, but that in an of itself is not a reason to jail or punish them, nor is it a reason to add to their sentence if they commit a crime.
Hate crime legislation is one more step along the road to a Statist, Orwellian world in which Marxists can punish those whose ideas they do not like. We've already seen hints of this kind of thinking in Gregoire's statements about right wing talk radio and blogs, and it's also been in the news lately regarding the regulation of blogs as we see with blogs in our more statist, Orwellian neighbor to the North.
Resist the temptation to say to yourself, yeah, their ought to be a law against hate crimes. They are two different things, hate and crime and they do not belong together.
Classic liberal moral relativism. It's only hate if it is perpetuated against select groups, it's not hate if it is perpetuated against the great and evil, middle class conservative male. That's justafied!
Hate crime law is a joke. Commit a crime, do the time.
Jeff B. - well said.
I might add that it is important to regulate bloggers, as they are so inciduous. But internet porn/child porn/NAMBLA, hey that is free speech! Amazing, isn't it?
To those like DannyHSDad who "despise 'hate crime' punishments -- you cannot read the minds of the criminals (their intent)" --
Like it or not, criminal law is FULL of determinations of intent or "mind reading." Really, that's the key to criminal law and punishments.....
*Premeditated* first-degree murder as opposed to manslaughter? Unless the perp confesses, "I planned the murder for a month beforehand" (not gonna happen), you've got to prove whether he thought about it in advance -- that's "mind reading" and the juries do it every day.
Same for proving attempted murder vs. assault in a case where someone is severely beaten. The question is whether one person *intended* (but failed) to kill the other. Gotta prove what the suspect intended to do -- kill or just hurt -- and the courts do this every single day.
When someone drives a car intentionally into another person, they can be charged with a crime (vehicular assault or even murder or attempted murder) but otherwise it's not a crime, just a case for damages. The key is whether the act was intentional -- purely a question of what was in the person's head.
When you come down to it, it's the mental element that separates crimes from ordinary "bad stuff" that happens. Let's say I pick up your cell phone off the table in a restaurant and take it with me. The whole question of whether I'm guilty of theft is whether I meant to do it, or did it by accident (say, thinking it was mine, etc.). It's *exactly* the same physical act. The thing that makes it a crime or not is what was in my head.
The only thing that distinguishes the two is that mental component. Every crime has some sort of mental state requirement that makes the act a crime rather than just something that the person has to pay damages for.
So, while it's fair to debate the pros and cons of hate crime legislation, it's not right to say that hate crimes are unlike regular crimes because they involve "what was in someone's mind" -- state of mind is the key element in EVERY crime.
17. Is it a HATE crime when liberal punks trash Republican offices and deface property of people expressing a Conservative opinion. Isn't that motivated by HATE. And how about trashing and obstructing military recruiters? Isn't that a crime motivated by hatred of the military?
If the left thinks we need hate crimes, let's enforce them even handedly.
I agree with you that determining intent is a part of criminial investigation and prosecution. Of course. But notice in each of your examples, you describe determining the intent of "a person" in causing harm to "another person." You did not say determining the intent of a "man" in beating up a "woman", or the intent of a "black man" in killing a "white man." When you attach special significance to the victim class, you have lost me.
Would you agree that hate crimes as currently constructed should be eliminated?
You make a very good point. I think the distinction here is that we go away from equal justice. Anyone that picks up the cell phone has the same system. If someone murders someone the punishment should be the same, it should not depend on the color/sexual orientation/religion of the two parties.
As you said, if it is an 'accidental' killing it is manslaughter. It can be shown that the intent to murder was there because of the various differences of the two parties. The harsher penalty is then doled out. But intent is shown, independent of color/....
The "mind reading" Richard posits is dependant on evidence. The murder bought, plastic, ammo, firearm, ax and and insurance policy on the same day. Then is wife is shot dismembered and he attempts to collect the policy. That is not mind reading, the evidence presented indicates planning prior to the murder. vs. the argument and wife being shot.
Assualt vs. murder, punk beats victim with baseball bat. A reasonable person would know that beating some one with a bat could result in the death of the victim. Not in WA it's just assualt.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to this question:
Victim A is dead, beating to death.
Victim B is dead, beating to death.
Why should the perp in the murder of Victim B get a greater sentence?
It doesn't depend on the Intent of the perp but the status of the victim. If the vic is a protect class it is assumed to be a hate crime.
In the last serious case to end state hate crime legislation, Mitchell vs. Wisconsin. Mitchell was represented by a Democratic State Senator (Adelman) who argued his hate crime enhanced sentence violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Democratic Attorney General Doyle argued for Wisconsin, whom DHHS Director Thompson was Governor of Wisconsin at that time. The US Supreme Court voted unanimously against Mitchell/Adelman with Rhenquist delivering the opinion.
I disagree with hate crime sentencing, but it is an issue both sides can get right or wrong.
While fact checking, I did find this quote you all will find humerous in today's context.
"These folks are judicial activists," Biden said of Rehnquist's majority. "They are saying the federal courts are going to make these judgments, not Congress."
I have never been able to understand the distinction.
Why is it so much better for (well, for me, for example) to be killed 'cause someone wants to steal my wallet, than for me to be killed 'cause someone is really irritated with me. Hate, or any emotion for that matter, can give impetus to actions, but it is the actions that are the signifiers.
The only reason, I can think of for the existance of hate crime legistation is to embody in law permanent victim classification for various groups to allow them greater leverage than they might have otherwise. Fairness would make that an argument against such legislation.
Many districts also have more severe penalties for crimes against police on duty.
I can't agree with this either, but only because I think the severity of punishment should be the same for all criminals regardless of the type of people they victimize.
23. Wayne has a very good point. A crime against the conservative point of view is excused by the left. When will the left start including 'hate language' as a hate crime? Remember Julia Pattersonís words on Carlsonís show "this language of conflict" it seemed to upset her. Gregoires false accusation of "talk show radios" inciting false threats on her life. Do you see where it could lead? Will the dems, in coming election losses, start on this path of accusing Republicansí mere existence a hate crime? Everything conservatives say and do is in essence a hate crime in the demented eyes of a liberal. Funny, thatís what I think about them.
Do you see where it could lead? Will the dems, in coming election losses, start on this path of accusing Republicansí mere existence a hate crime? Everything conservatives say and do is in essence a hate crime in the demented eyes of a liberal.
I think Canada is leading the way in this regard. It is a little bit frightening.
25. Scott - I had to skip to the bottom here as soon as I read your comment about liberals having to make up their minds -- NOT POSSIBLE - they do not have minds that are capable of rational and/or logical reasoning - if they did - they would not be 'liberals' -- bottom line - They do not have minds that are capable of being 'made up'
26. A crime is a crime. Murder is murder, rape is rape, and robbery is robbery. Don't matter what class/orientation the victim is/was. "Hate Crimes" legislation is just another brick in the wall of liberalism being built to hem us in.
The actors mental state or intent should only go towards showing/proving the actor motivation to commit the crime and that needs to be backed with evidence, not used to enhance any penelaties...just my 2 cents worth
Someone said (Paraphrase):
"Don't bother attempting to reason a person out of that which they were never reasoned into."
Don't ya'll recall the grand legacy of hate crime legislation?
Hate crime statutes first appeared in Germany. The were used to control the rabid anti-social instigators of the destruction of civilization. The were used by the Nazis against the Jews.
Yes, today's thought police walk in the fog of idiocy that they so loudly claim to detest. Alas,...sic semper stultus.