Today's Seattle Times includes an intriguing tale of the coverage - or lack thereof - a horrific double rape & murder. The two victims are white. The four alleged criminals are black. The story details the lack of media attention paid to the terrible act, in stark contrast to the explosive coverage of Duke lacrosse case where the circumstances of race were reversed. Inevitably, the question of whether or not the act constitutes a "hate crime" is posed.
I thought we were supposed to be living in a color-blind society? Who cares about the race or other life circumstances of the victims versus the criminals? I think many Americans would actually agree on something regardless of the race of any of the individuals involved. If a young couple is kidnapped, raped, and murdered, any four adult perpetrators found guilty of that crime in our court system should face one question after appropriate appeals and the requisite opportunity to consult with a prison chaplain:
"Any requests for your last meal?"
Posted by Eric Earling at June 11, 2007 06:42 PM | Email ThisFrom the link you posted (which is all I know of this crime), I see no reason to call this a hate crime.
Posted by: Bruce on June 11, 2007 08:33 PMWhile I agree that this is not a hate crime, saying a hate crime is intended to scare an entire group is not correct either. If that were the precedent, you would have seen many cases and prosecution/sentencing decisions end up totally different.
Often it seems that a hate crime is a few-on-few issue. Generally, individuals who beat a gay man to death are not out to teach all gays a lesson, they just want to cause pain and death to that one victim.
I think that the bigger issue is in fact the coverage of the crime...or lack there of.
And if a hate crime was defined by it's intent to scare an entire group, I think this quote from the article:
"In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.", it seems that by your definition, blacks hate whites.
But I doubt you believe that.
Posted by: Chris on June 11, 2007 08:56 PMa. You thought wrong. This has, still is, and
probably will be a society that discriminates
on the basis of looks. Tall men make more money,
beautiful people are given more advantages.
Check out Spike Lee's "School Daze" Black
people even discriminate on the basis of
color. In my opinion, your comment is
not perceptive of the ways people in general
and some on a regular basis make choices.
b. I agree with you that people should be held
accountable for their acts. Color has nothing
to do with this principle, it is a universal.
c. In the attempt to remedy the fact that people
discriminate all the time and when this
discrimination is aimed at a particular
racial, gender, or ethnic group, programs
like the Great Society were designed to remedy
the economic effect of this discrimination.
Problem is that this programs often created
social problems which made it almost
impossible to address the economic issues.
Wesley Snipes is attempting to defend his
tax evasion charge on the basis of race. No
pal, you were indicted because you failed
to pay taxes, not because you are Black.
2. Hate crrimes analytically are designed to
address entities and persons who target a
particular group and then commit a crime
against the group or inidividual. I suppose
the intent is deterrance. I read press reports
that say studies have found that capital
punishment is a deterrance. Haven't read the
studies, though. To the extent the legislation
deters a crime, there is a argument for
the category of crime.
If conservatives want to enlist the support of more persons of color, many of whom are quite
conservative, I would suggest that the lame mantra of this is a color-blind society be discarded. It is not color-blind, what it can be is fairer and offer opportunities based not on color, but competance. There are many who don't like Oprah, but she has enough success, that she probably doesn't care.
Unfair: Inviting a jury to peer into a crystal ball, sort through all of the sophistry of the prosecution and defense, and determine what was in the heart(s) and mind(s) of the defendant(s), with punishment determined by whatever they guess.
Posted by: TB on June 11, 2007 10:12 PMMichele- Medved's quote is cute but irrelevant, because it ignores the point of hate crime laws (which I summarized in #1).
Would you rather these scum be tried for calling the vicitms honkeys?
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 11, 2007 11:52 PMMost hate crimes aren't murder. They are much less serious offenses. For example if I go to a jewish neighborhood and spray paint swastikas on garage doors, absent hate crime laws, I have committed a minor offense. Similarly burning down a church to instill fear in Christians is no different then burning down an abandoned warehouse for fun.
Hate crime laws allow us to punish such things more harshly. This is not a bad thing. A crime targeting people of a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation is generally worse then one not as it instills fear in an entire group of people. It also represents motives and effects that we have decided are more nefarious then others.
By the way here is some hard data on hate crimes. Notice that anti-white and anti-Christian violence is prosecuted and that the overall number of hate crimes is rather low.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html
You argument leaves open a problem.
If a crime has the effect of scaring an entire group, though that was not the intent of the perpetrators, then white folk who fear blacks because of any violence that a black person commits against whites means that the blacks should be prosecuted under the hate-crimes mandate. Somehow, I do not see this helping race relations at all.
I think Giffy got some of it explained in #13. Some crimes are clearly "hate" crimes in that they are designed to intimidate groups. Burning crosses, swastikas, church arson, and the like are meant to intimidate and should be addressed that way rather than as simple vandalism. Where we get in trouble is when individual acts are elevated as hate crimes absent any evidence. The Duke case might be an example. But even worse is when media hype and the "stirrings up" from victim mongers like Sharpton drive further wedges between races, or groups of people. Things like that have a tendency to inflame tensions, not facilitate good relations. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the media except to register our disgust and "turn the dial". Too bad that many people would rather watch and participate in the orgy of virtual voyeurism.
Posted by: Eyago on June 12, 2007 06:37 AMYou're right. Hate crime.
Kind of throws a monkey wrench into your discussion, doesn't it?
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2007 06:39 AMBut the left can't wait for those on the right to do something that they can attack, so instead the try to implement thought crime and the Fairness Doctrine to control the right in advance.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 12, 2007 07:56 AMI recall being against hate crime legislation when it was first passed since all crime is hate crime.
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2007 08:04 AMAnd? Scaring people is protected by the First Amendment.
Hate crime legislation is thoughtcrime legislation. That's not a mere aphorism, it happens to be true.
I wouldn't think that in a civilized society we would NEED a reason to punish a double rape and murder more severely. We should lock these people away for the rest of their lives, or else take their lives away, regardless of whether the intent was to scare anyone else. They RAPED AND MURDERED two innocent kids. Raise your hand if you think they should ever see the light of day again, regardless of whether it was motivated by race.
Also, I am not for color-blindness. I am for color-mitigation. I don't want to act like color does not exist, I want to act like color is not nearly the most important thing. Maybe you're Italian or Catholic or from the Northeast, or all of the above: those things make a difference. But at the end of the day, you're still you, and not merely those things.
When I see a black person I am unfamiliar with, maybe "black" is one of the first things that comes to mind. My brain is trying to process who this person is, and what makes him unique. But when I see Barack Obama, "black" doesn't come to my conscious mind, because I already know enough about him to see him as an individual. Some of how I see him is informed by his being black, but also by his religion, where he grew up, where he lives, his political party, and, of course, his own views and statements. I am not blind to his color, but it's also only one small piece to the puzzle.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 08:37 AM"In today's politcally correct world, it's only a hate crime if the perps are caucasian and the victim is from some other group."
Wasn't the guy who shot up the Seattle Jewish Center changed with a hate crime?
Posted by: NW Denizen on June 12, 2007 08:47 AM(Bruce) when some hurts, robs or what ever. Do you really think they like you?
Please!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2007 09:43 AMI'm pretty sure that guy said something like, "I hate all Jews" before proceeding to shoot up the SJC. But of course, he's crazy, (and to some) he's oppressed so he can't be held liable. ::rolls eyes::
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2007 09:48 AMWhich, of course, brings us to the point: if your "hate crime" constitutes an actual threat, we already have laws against threats. We don't need to call it a "hate crime" we can call it a "threat."
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 10:06 AMMost violent crimes have some element of "hate", and while it might make people feel better to characterize it as a hate crime in some instances, crime is crime, and they should be punished equally and accordingly.
I don't like the guy who spray paints swastikas either, but is he any more guilty when he defaces a grave than someone else who spray paints it with graffiti because people are more offended by the former? I would say not. Making it so is equivalent to being thought police.
Posted by: Palouse on June 12, 2007 10:24 AMPunish the crime, not the thoughts.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 12, 2007 10:35 AMHate crimes are determined by the mental state of the perp. His thoughts.
Ergo, Hate crimes are thought crimes.
Crimes that are already against the law. Crimes that have the same deleterious effect on the victim, regardless of motivation of the perp.
So, why do we need "hate crime laws"? Just like why do we need DV laws, when all violence is already against the law? Because we want to "punish" a disfavored group, that is why.
Same difference, different sentence.
How convienent to punish your enemies, based on thought.
Scary sheyt, methinks.
Geezer rests
Posted by: The Geezer on June 12, 2007 10:44 AMAll: Who could forget when Christopher Kime was murdered at the Mardi Gras fiasco; perps were pummeling people "This is what you white people deserve", etc. Clearly some black on white racial stuff going on there. But the wonderful Leftists in Seattle declared that it was not a "hate crime", anyway. No good explanation for that. Period.
Posted by: Michele on June 12, 2007 12:53 PMRead the link I provide early, few crimes are prosecuted as hate crimes. The burden is actually quite high to sustain. And yes blacks and other minorities are prosecuted for hate crimes.
No one has been prosecuted under hate crimes laws for simple speech. If you want to talk about crimes based solely on speech then start attacking libel and slander laws.
1. Hate crime, as I understand it, goes beyond
thought. It is not against the law to dislike
me because of my race or gender. A hate
crime specifically refers to certain actions
which are crimes which are committed with
the intent to intimidate, harass, or threaten
specifically because an individual is a
member of a class protected by the law.
2. People can hate their neighbor all they want
and think evil, mean and nasty things about
them. You are not, however, entitled to put
your evil thoughts into action. Seems to
me that penalities could have been increased
for all that committ crimes with the specific
intent to harass a racial, ethnic, or religious
classification. The crime is a political
tool used to intimate a whole group.
3. Too bad our schools are often poor in teaching
factual recent history. There is a historical
reason for hate crime legislation which has
little to do with the thought police. During
the Civil Rights struggle in this country
lynching and intimidation were used to prevent
US citizens from excercising their privledge
to vote. Mississippi Burning tells this story.
4. I don't know the history of this particular
type of legislation, but it appears that it
was not well thought out in terms of all
possible consequences. Still, the type of
crime it was designed for deserves some
type of deterrance.
Don't pretend that people who disagree with you are somehow less educated. In fact, it is thoughtcrime. The PURPOSE is often to restrict harassment and threats (even though we already have laws to do that), but in fact, hate crime legislation usually adds an additional sentencing penalty for hateful motivation, not for intent to harass or intimidate.
So if I beat up a Jewish person because I hate Jews, without any intent to threaten anyone else, that is taken as a de facto threat anyway, and it is called a hate crime. That IS thoughtcrime, regardless of the motivations.
Hate crime laws, in fact, are a way to get around having to prove any intimidation, harassment, or threats. By only having to prove you hated a certain class of people, they get around having to prove you did anything actually wrong (in addition to the original crime, of course).
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 10:38 PMGoodness, aren't we a tad bit upset this evening.
1. "Thoughtcrime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the anarchist organization/experiment, see CrimethInc.
In George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".
In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary:
" Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death. "
He also makes remarks to the effect that "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."
That is the origin of the term thought police.
2. "Don't pretend that people who disagree with you are somehow less educated. In fact, it is thoughtcrime."
I never said anything about any person's education other than the statement that many schools don't present factual information about
recent history. I disagree with you thought police addicts because your thoughts are not what is being criminalized, acting on those thoughts are.
3.I guess your argument is the specific intent required for a hate crime is equivalent to the thought police:
Legal definition of Specific Intent
Specific intent. The mental purpose to accomplish a specific act prohibited by law. The most common usage of "specific intent" is to designate a special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime. Common law larceny, for example, requires the taking and carrying away of the property of another, and the defendant's mental state as to this act must be established, but in addition it must be shown that there was an "intent to steal" the property. Similarly, common law burglary requires a breaking and entry into the dwelling of another, but in addition to the mental state connected with these acts it must also be established that the defendant acted "with intent to commit a felony therein." The subjective desire or knowledge that the prohibited result will occur. People v. Owens, 131 Mich.App. 76, 345 N.W.2d 904, 907. See also Criminal (Criminal intent); Mens rea.
Specific intent crime. Crime in which defendant must not only intend the act charged but also intend to violate law. U.S. v. Birkenstock, C.A.Wis., 823 F.2d 1026, 1028. One in which a particular intent is a necessary element of the crime itself. Russell v. State, Fla.App., 373 So.2d 97, 98. See also Mens rea; Specific intent.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The critical identifying element of hate crimes is the bias motivation of the perpetrator. The distinguishing factor can be obscured by the very term hate crime, which is the popular term used in connection with bias-motivated violence. In fact, bias crime is a more accurate label. Many if not most crimes are motivated by hatred of one kind or another. Not every crime that is motivated by hatred for the victim is a bias crime. Hate-based violence causes a bias crime only when this hatred is connected with antipathy for a group, such as a racial or ethnic group, or for an individual because of membership in that group. In some form, virtually every state in the United States expressly criminalizes bias crimes."
FREDERICK M. LAWRENCE
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1318/Hate-Crimes.html
There are still specific elements which have to be proved with a hate or bias crime. As for thought crimes, well no one is prosecuted for their thoughts, just actions based upon those thoughts.
I do know, however, that you are wrong when you claim to have said nothing about my education. You directly implied that disagreement with you was due to "our schools [being] poor in teaching factual recent history." Would you like to take that back?
Perhaps some of your confusion lies in that you misunderstand the difference between intent and motive. Nothing I said is about intent. Hate crime -- as Lawrence noted -- is all about motive, not intent. Intent is about whether they meant to rape and kill, as opposed to it happening by accident (and, of course, how long they intended it, and whether they planned for it, and so on). Motive is the reason WHY they intended it.
And Lawrence is correct in everything else he said too, though I am not sure why you quoted him, since none of it disagrees with anything I said.
Indeed, you didn't in any way harm my argument, which is that a. to the extent that hate crimes should have a greater penalty, we already have the tools to do that through laws against threats and so on (and if we feel those should be stronger, then we can do that separately), b. hate crime laws criminalize thoughts (beyond mere intent).
Now, it is true that technically, the thoughts alone are not criminal, and I never implied differently. However, the thoughts are made criminal by the actions, and that is thoughtcrime. It is not merely the action that is criminal, but the thought is additionally criminal by virtue of the action.
If this weren't true, then hate crime laws would require more than just proof of hateful motivation: they would require proof that the criminal intended to threaten or intimidate. Because, again, intent is what matters most. Elsewhere in criminal law, motive is rarely considered to be a mitigating factor: intent is what is primarily considered. Motive either exists, or it doesn't. It is how you help prove a crime was committed, it doesn't change the sentence if it is one criminal motive versus another.
But not so with hate crime laws: here, we have one criminal motive actually being worse than another, and the reason why is because some motives are taken as de facto evidence of another crime (threat against a protected class). And frankly, as far as I am concerned, this is a serious violation of the Due Process clause of the 8th and 14th Amendments. Motive can never be taken as de facto evidence of a separate crime. That is, precisely, what thoughtcrime is. It doesn't go as far as it did in 1984, but it's the same basic concept.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2007 10:34 AM1. I'm not upset, I thought you were.
2. No, Pudge I wasn't talking about you in particular. This is what I said:
"3. Too bad our schools are often poor in teaching
factual recent history. There is a historical
reason for hate crime legislation which has
little to do with the thought police. During
the Civil Rights struggle in this country
lynching and intimidation were used to prevent
US citizens from excercising their privledge
to vote. Mississippi Burning tells this story."
What I am referring to is there is a history of crimes predicated on attempting to discourage people of color from excercising their rights, such as voting or integrating public accomodation. Mississippi Burning is a fictionalized account of the murder of three civil rights workers. So, given the historical content, which many schools do not teach, factually there is an additional element to bias crimes.
How in the heck did you think that referred to you specifically?
3. This is our point of disagreement:
"Now, it is true that technically, the thoughts alone are not criminal, and I never implied differently. However, the thoughts are made criminal by the actions, and that is thoughtcrime. It is not merely the action that is criminal, but the thought is additionally criminal by virtue of the action."
There is the old saying about free speech. There are limitations. One can not yell fire in a crowded theater. You can think anything you want that is not controlled. When you act on those thoughts in a manner that is defined as a criminal act. Well that is the probem.
4. Hate or bias crimes are simply one category of crime as defined by a legislative body. You don't seem to have a problem with murder or assault, do you? Suppose hate or bias crimes were tried under the murder or assault statutes, for example and there was a provision in the statute for an extraordinary sentence based upon factors such as depraved indifference to life or trying to prevent a citizen from excercising some civil right such as voting. Do you have a problem with the fact that an extrordinary sentence can be imposed as a result of a crime that was predicated on bias?
5. The reason that there is a separate category of bias or hate crime is that it does allow for some uniformity in the treatment of a certain class of the accused. If there was reliance on sentencing or the manner in which suspects were charged there could be disparities in treatment.
My question to you is are you just really uncomfortible with the concept of bias or hate based crimes in general? That is, in my opinion, a valid line of argument. This thought police stuff, still disgaree with you.
Ok, your serve
hate crimes are yet more layers added to the onion purposely & genetically engineered on a once-simple veggie.
lawyers love its confounding contusions. the eternal victim group industry loves it--full employment for all concerned. away we move from Occom's razor. make everything complex for complexity's or pc's sake. sometimes the simple answer is the best.
another court-clogger. now, special victim classes are more deserving than other victims. that's equality under the law? i think not.
every group in America has been abused and oppressed at some time or another. why create MORE layers of victim classes/distinctions? grow up & move on. also, like work, usually the loudest whiners are the least 'abused.' the strong & brave move on & heal themselves without the force of a nanny state behind them. and they work to not let it happen again through strength & conviction.
just my opin...
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 13, 2007 01:58 PMI know what you said, and it is an ad hominem attack, and it's also a straw man fallacy, since the disagreement with you is irrespective of the history. And you got the history wrong, too, because you are also engaging in the question-begging fallacy by saying the origins had nothing to do with the thought police: that is your interpretation, but it is not a fact at all. I maintain it had, always, everything to do with thought police.
You may be right in saying that was not the INTENT of the hate crime legislation, but that is what it did nonetheless: criminalized thought. It is what it did then, and it is what it does today, and disagreement with you on this point has nothing to do with how educated people are.
Another straw man fallacy: I never stated or implied that free expression has no limits. And it's a red herring fallacy too, because here we are talking about thought, not expression.
As to your fourth point: so since it is defined by a legislative body that makes it acceptable? I have this thing called a Constitution that disagrees with your analysis. And your two comparison examples prove my point about motive, because both of those have to do with intent. Depraved indifference is a way of saying, "you did not intend to murder the person, but you did so with a disregard for whether you would kill someone." That is not motive, that is intent. And same thing with trying to prevent someone from voting: there, you have to prove their intent was to commit the additional crime of interfering with someone's civil right to vote.
But in hate crimes, it is a completely different situation. You're talking there about merely the fact that I was motivated by hatred. There is no evidence of any other crime other than the fact that the criminal hated the person, which is, of course, criminalizing thought. No evidence is presented, other than their hatred, that they intended to threaten or intimidate a protected class of people, unlike in the voting case, where you do need to present actual evidence that they intended to commit this other crime.
You have done nothing to show that any crime other than thoughtcrime is being alleged here (in addition to the original crime, of course), and you've done nothing to show that mere hateful motivation is itself evidence of any other crime.
That's the bottom line: this is criminalizing thought. It is putting someone in jail for extra time because they thought something that someone else thinks they shouldn't have thought. Every other example you've come up with speaks to intent to commit an actual crime. But here we are not talking about intent. We already established intent. Now you're saying he should get extra time because of the reason WHY he had intent, BECAUSE of some purely hypothetical effect that motive may have (and without providing any evidence whatsoever that the effect, whether it exists or not, was actually intended).
My problem is that people should be convicted based on evidence against them for what they do, or try to do, and not their reasons why. You can say if someone intends to murder, that is more serious than not caring if you murder, and that is more serious than not intending harm at all. You can say that it is a crime to intend to violate someone's civil rights. But you cannot say that it is a crime to do something that, depending on your reasons for doing it, MAY HAVE an effect on a protected class of people, whether that effect is intended or not.
That is thoughtcrime. And whether you like to call it thoughtcrime or not, the point still stands: you are holding someone accountable for a crime that you've provided no evidence they intended to commit, and that's a violation of our Constitutional right to due process.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2007 03:04 PM"1. WVH: yes, you were talking about me. Not in particular, no, but you were talking about people who disagreed with you.
I know what you said, and it is an ad hominem attack, and it's also a straw man fallacy, since the disagreement with you is irrespective of the history. And you got the history wrong, too, because you are also engaging in the question-begging fallacy by saying the origins had nothing to do with the thought police: that is your interpretation, but it is not a fact at all. I maintain it had, always, everything to do with thought police."
How does saying that the school curriculum in some schools does not factually teach the facts of a period in history turn into an ad hominem attack on you? Are you a member of one of the school boards or the administrator for curriculum to which the comment was directed at? If so, you are right, then I am attacking you.
2. We are never going to agree on the thought police drivel, I think that is a bogus argument and we could argue that until the cows come home or pigs fly. I believe this is the argument you want to make. The argument is the same that is made in gun control and immigration issues. There are enough laws on the books and what is needed is enforcement and sufficient punishment to deter the activity society wants prohibited.
3. Now, this is a possible attack on you. In my opinion, using the thought police drivel is a cover for the true disagreement which is hate/bias crimes should not be a separate category because the current laws are sufficient. A lot of people don't want to make this argument because they open themselves up to a counter argument that they are bigots as was the case with Bush when he was governor of Texas. I think that is more honest that the garbage about thought police. Now, that was an attack on you.
Your serve.
Posted by: WVH on June 13, 2007 03:41 PMHow do you not get what you did? Whatever, I have already clearly explained what you did, and you've done nothing to argue against it except saying the virtual equivalent of "nuh uh!" I am not going to keep repeating myself.
The argument is the same that is made in gun control and immigration issues. There are enough laws on the books and what is needed is enforcement and sufficient punishment to deter the activity society wants prohibited.
No. I never said they were sufficient to deter the activity. I said that we already have laws to prohibit that activity. In fact, I specifically noted that the reason we have hate crime laws is to make it easier to punish the offense of threatening and intimidating people: the problem is, that it does so by unconstitutionally reducing the evidentiary standard. It's not enough to have a more effective means of prosecuting activities if that means does not respect the civil rights of the accused.
With hate crime laws, no longer does it have to be proven that you intended to threaten or intimidate anyone, now you only have to be proven to hate, and to have performed some other related crime. That is what hate crime laws do: take away our civil liberties, take away our due process. If you want to convict me for threatening or intimidating people, you better be able to prove that is what I intended to do. That is what our Constitution demands.
And hate crime laws skirt that, or at the very least, treat all intent equally. So if I obviously did intend to intimidate a whole protected class of people by beating up someone in that class, that specific intent is treated no differently from basic intent, or no intent at all. This violates the concept of mens rea: the guilty mind, which is required for criminal liability.
For mens rea, you need to show intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, and each of these is treated differently. If you intended to threaten a whole protected class, that is very different from doing so through negligence. It's the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter. Yet hate crime laws take your hateful motivation and assume intent.
Motive can inform a claim of intent, but it cannot itself be taken as proof of intent. That is where the due process violation comes in. I know this is a difficult subject, and highly technical, but it is very important if we wish to respect the Constitution and civil liberties.
I've only seen two justification for hate crime laws. The first is the one I've been primarily attacking: that hate crimes threaten and intimidate others and so should be punished more severely. But without some higher burden of evidence of intent in regards to the claim of criminal intimidation, this violates due process.
The other claim is easier to dismiss, from my standpoint: it's that, simply, people who act out of hateful motivation are more likely to re-offend. But I reject that, as I think most people do, for not only is the evidence for that claim necessarily weak (with many flaws in any possible methodology), but it also even more directly criminalizes thought. I am not necessarily opposed to more severely punishing people who are likely to re-offend, but am entirely against doing that based on specific categories of thought, rather than an individual evaluation of the convicted.
In my opinion, using the thought police drivel is a cover
Shrug. Your opinion is beyond silly. I never, ever, say anything as cover. I say what I think. If I cannot back up what I think, then chances are I don't think it very strongly, and I won't bother saying it at all. Your attack on me just displays your ignorance, as anyone who knows me knows quite well that I do not cover up my views. Ever.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2007 04:20 PMhttp://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/
Posted by: JDH on June 13, 2007 07:29 PMHate crimes have to do with MOTIVE, not INTENT. We do not have different sentencing because of motive for any other other motive.
So, yes, hate crime enhancements are thought crimes.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 13, 2007 07:31 PMWell it is a good thing I post at this site whether you agree with my opinions or not. You get the views of a non angry Black woman.
1. Pudge:
How can I not get what I did? Sorry, but if you took my comments to be an ad hominem attack on you personally, well I am not up to standards because believe me if my thought were to attack you, I would have done better. The comments were what they were.
"Shrug. Your opinion is beyond silly. I never, ever, say anything as cover. I say what I think. If I cannot back up what I think, then chances are I don't think it very strongly, and I won't bother saying it at all. Your attack on me just displays your ignorance, as anyone who knows me knows quite well that I do not cover up my views. Ever."
Let's see, you have called me silly, ignorant, and I just don't get it. Guess what, I don't feel attacked because if you have a strong argument, you don't need to call people names. May I suggest that you are feeling insecure because of things other than my comments because my comments about the curriculum have nothing to do with an person's educational attainment in general and yours in particular.
If it makes you feel more secure to think that hate crimes take away your Consitutional right to think what you please, go ahead, after all you are not hurting anyone with that line of thought.
Let's make you feel secure so you don't get your feelings hurt.
2. JDH
My recollection is that you live in Tacoma and have plenty of contempt for most citizens there. The angry Black Woman represents one point of view just as David Duke represents another point of view. Goodness, the three of you seem to be quite angry people, so what does that make you?
3. Bill H
A hate crime is one example of the use of motive
in criminal law, see also:
"For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction."
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html
There is a study regarding computer hackers and what elements should be used in sentencing them:
"The USSC, as O'Neill puts it, "creates sentencing guidelines for all federal courts. It crafts the guidelines that enable judges to choose appropriate sentences within statutorily authorized ranges." That means that the commission is responsible for building charts and formulae that tell federal judges what range of possible sentences a criminal should face -- from probation to life imprisonment. The term "guidelines" is slightly misleading here: these guidelines are binding, and all federal judges must sentence according to them.
Currently, the guidelines regarding computer crime are the same as for larceny, embezzlement and theft, with factors like financial loss and "use of special skills" dictating the offender's sentence. O'Neill hopes to refine the guidelines for computer crime, possibly making the intruder's motives a factor in their legal fate."
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/363
So for good or bad motive is part of the law.
I am so glad the three of you have each other to lean on and cling to.
Your serve.
Posted by: WVH on June 13, 2007 10:16 PMI guess you literally didn't get the memo:
GOP issues rules to avoid Macaca moments
By: Carrie Budoff
Jun 13, 2007 05:16 PM EST
"Sen. George Allen was the unintentional creator of the Macaca moment -- and it sank him.
The Macaca moment has morphed into an official learning tool for the Republican establishment.
It's right there, on pages 18 and 22 of an Internet guide from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee that its chairman, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), hopes will become scripture for the 2008 candidates.
Always assume you're being recorded, and always record your opponent. The blogs -- oh, scratch that -- the Republican blogs are your friends, so use them for rapid response in good times and bad.
"The paradigmatic example of failure to do so is the 'macaca' moment," reads the guidebook (excerpted here), referring to a remark last year by former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) that was captured on video and sunk his reelection campaign...."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4483.html
My point is that people who argue for hate crime legislation try to conflate this with "intent" and then argue that intent has always been used to justify a greater sentence. As I pointed out, intent has to do with whether you intended the criminal result (e.g. did you intend for the victim to die and did you plan it out ahead of time). Motive has to do with why you did it. Intent is used to decide criminal penalty; before hate crime legislation, motive has only been used to help prove the criminal case.
I don't see that you have refuted any of this.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 14, 2007 06:31 AM1. Is the real objection that you do not feel
that hate crimes should be a separate category
of crime with a distinct penalty? Should
computer hackers have lengthier sentences
based upon their effect on society?
2. I think the crux of the matter is how society
wants to analyze and deal with individuals
and/or groups that specifically target others
on the basis of defineable identifiable
characteristics such as race, religion, or
gender. I think that your argument and that
of the others is that the current laws are
sufficient to deal with crime in general and
that is the remedy.
3. The next issue is does society want to deter
the bias/hate crime category. I'm assuming
assuming the JDHs of the world would say no
as they would like most people not like
them eliminated, so I will ask the questions
to those falling in the middle:
a. does society want to deter crimes that
are aimed at persons of identifiable
characteristics such as race, religion,
or gender?
Some examples of this type of activity
are Hilter's campaign, Darfour, Hamas,
and in our recent history lynchings in
the South.
b. If society wishes to deter bias or hate
crimes:
What is the best method of deterrance?
What is the preferred method of deterrance?
What is the politically feasible method
of deterrance?
4. I suppose that a lot of the disagreement
regarding hate or bias crimes is that a
certain segment of the population believes
that these types of crimes do not exist.
After all, this thread began with the comment
that we live in a color-blind society.
The FBI produces a report on hate crime:
Hate Crime Statistics
Each year's edition of Hate Crime Statistics presents data regarding incidents, offenses, victims, and offenders in reported crimes that were motivated in whole or in part by a bias against the victim's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability.
2005
2004
2003 (pdf)
2002 (pdf)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate
Now, assuming you accept the FBI information, a couple of questions to you:
1. Should society attempt to deter hate crime?
2. If you think hate crimes ahould be
deterred, how would you deter this category
of crime?
Your serve
Posted by: WVH on June 14, 2007 07:49 AMHow can I not get what I did?
I wish I could know the answer to that. It certainly is odd!
Let's see, you have called me silly, ignorant, and I just don't get it.
False. I called your opinion, your self-described attack on me, as silly. Not you. And I said this displayed your ignorance in regards to me personally, which is self-evident whether I say it or not: if you have an incorrect opinion of me, that necessarily means you are ignorant of me, no? That's how it works.
Guess what, I don't feel attacked because if you have a strong argument, you don't need to call people names.
I didn't call you names. Shrug. If I had actually said you were silly or ignorant, that would be name-calling. Saying your opinion is silly, and that you have ignorance about me, is not name-calling. I could have also said, in regards to the latter, that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to me, but that means precisely the same thing as what I said. No name-calling there; sorry to disappoint you.
Further, I shouldn't have to point out that even if I did engage in name-calling (which I clearly did not), it is a logical fallacy to claim that it means I don't have a strong argument.
May I suggest that you are feeling insecure
You can suggest that, but it isn't true. More ignorance about me. Shrug.
If it makes you feel more secure to think that hate crimes take away your Consitutional right to think what you please, go ahead, after all you are not hurting anyone with that line of thought.
Nope, it doesn't make me feel secure at all. I have no feelings in this matter at all, in fact. I am not remotely insecure, and nothing I say or do could make me feel more secure, except in one regard: the more I think through an issue and analyze it in legal and historical contexts, the more secure I "feel" in my thoughts on the matter.
I have a better-than-average understanding of the Constitution, and I have thoughts about it, and those thoughts lead me to other thoughts. Some people may come to their views about hate crimes and other issues based on feelings, but I am not one of those people.
I am sorry that you apparently are such a person. Feelings get in the way of rational thought.
Also, your statement about motive actually hurts your case. Read it again! Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction. That is the claim I have been making. A hate crime shows only motive, and this is insufficient for conviction of the crime of threatening/intimidating anyone.
As to the statement about computer crime, probably, O'Neill is misspeaking, or the reporter is misrepresenting: since O'Neill is not being quoted directly, or in context, it is impossible to know. What O'Neill is talking about there is, most likely, what the hacker actually intended to do, which is, of course, a matter of intent, not motive. If he really means motive, then I hope he fails, because that's nonsense. A friend of mine was convicted in Oregon for hacking into Intel. He was a contractor, and he intended to do what he did. He had no intent to steal anything, he was just trying to prove it could be done. We can and should deal with that by enforcing the law against intent to steal (attempted larceny, etc.). But that is all about intent, not motive. Similarly, if someone hacks into a computer by accident (it can happen), that is also a matter of intent.
And you are just wrong here: I think the crux of the matter is how society wants to analyze and deal with individuals and/or groups that specifically target others on the basis of defineable identifiable characteristics such as race, religion, or gender.
You do think that, of course, but you are wrong to. Again, it doesn't matter how society wants to deal with it if it violates the civil rights of those individuals. Civil rights are more important than the "crux" you are talking about. According to the Constitution, anyway. I notice you've not responded to any of the Constitutional claims I've made: is it because you don't care about the Constitution, or because you are incapable of responding to the claims? Or is there another reason?
3. The next issue is does society want to deter the bias/hate crime category. I'm assuming assuming the JDHs of the world would say no as they would like most people not like them eliminated
Wow. Nice slander! More evidence you are merely "feeling" and not "thinking." Seriously, this is one of the more vile things I've read on this site, and I believe you absolutely owe JDH an apology. JDH never implied or stated in any way that they believe people not like them should be eliminated. Hell, you don't only owe JDH an apology, it was so terrible that you owe everyone else here an apology, too. I hope you feel quite embarrassed and ashamed for making that disgusting statement.
Talk all you want about name-calling, but saying JDH wants people eliminated is far worse than any name-calling (not that anyone actually called you any names, of course).
a. does society want to deter crimes that are aimed at persons of identifiable characteristics such as race, religion, or gender?
It shouldn't specifically, no. It should want to deter crimes, period.
Some examples of this type of activity are Hilter's campaign, Darfour, Hamas, and in our recent history lynchings in the South.
Would any of those have been any better if they were NOT aimed at "persons of identifiable characteristics?" If Hitler killed about 10 million people for random reasons, would that have been any less an atrocity?
Again, the reason why these crimes should be treated differently is only because of the effect they may have on society. I do support extra deterrence for that reason, but not against the crimes themselves, but against attempts to use those crimes as a means of intimidating or threatening people. But that requires, by our Constitution, an additional level of evidence, and merely showing motive -- as you yourself quoted! -- is not enough. When you ask, "how would you deter this category of crime?," I've already answered that, by saying you need to prove intent. I know you didn't ask that question of me, but you already have an answer that you've refused to address, so why should anyone else bother to answer you?
4. I suppose that a lot of the disagreement regarding hate or bias crimes is that a certain segment of the population believes that these types of crimes do not exist. After all, this thread began with the comment that we live in a color-blind society.
False. No one ever said that. So now you have gone from misrepresenting me and viciously slandering JDH to misquoting Eric. He said he thought we SHOULD be living in such a society, not that we do.
Now perhaps I understand why you don't get how you were, in fact, attacking me and everyone else who disagreed with you on the education comment. You appear to be blind to you own misrepresentations and slander of others.
WVH: if you do not apologize for what you said about JDH, I will not respond to you again, on anything, except to ridicule you for your slander. Further, if you continue to ignore my arguments -- you've abjectly refused to talk about the Constitutional issues involved -- then you will be ignored on this issue henceforth.
1. I have no intention of apologizing to JDH. I have dealt with him on other issues, so if you don't want to ever respond to me. Wow, I'm feeling the loss. Anyhow, shouldn't JDH be the one who is outraged?
2. Since you are never going to respond to me again, well I get a freebie. I think you are a jerk.
3. Now, after you have gotten over me calling you a jerk and JDH a bigot. I think this is the Consitutional issue you want addressed, but I am not sure. Since you are not responding, well I can pretty much choose the issues.
"You do think that, of course, but you are wrong to. Again, it doesn't matter how society wants to deal with it if it violates the civil rights of those individuals. Civil rights are more important than the "crux" you are talking about."
Are you saying that under your reading of the Constitution that the rights of a murder or arsonist are superior to the rights of a victim?
Now, suppose that the perp is being charged under the regular murder statute, are you saying their rights are violated by simply charging them?
OK, you are saying that you support:
"I do support extra deterrence for that reason, but not against the crimes themselves, but against attempts to use those crimes as a means of intimidating or threatening people. But that requires, by our Constitution, an additional level of evidence, and merely showing motive -- as you yourself quoted!"
So, if you support extra deterrence and you have more than a passing knowledge of the Constitution.
Poor ignorant, dumb me is willing to learn.
1.What extra level of evidence do you think is required?
2.Can you give me the elements of the crime that you feel will provide the the necessary level of deterrence?
3. Can you give me examples of the type of evidence you feel will pass Consitutional muster in your deterrence scheme?
I'll tell you in advance I still think JDH is a bigot and you are a jerk.
Posted by: WVH on June 14, 2007 01:36 PMSo much for the beginning thesis of this thread, this is a color-blind society.
Posted by: WVH on June 14, 2007 09:53 PMAn apology to a bigot like JDH has nothing to do with maturity, it is a recognition that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. As the Jews say, "never again," people in this country don't have to kowtow to bigots. So, if you choose to never respond to any of my thoughts, well as they say, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Adios.
Posted by: WVH on June 14, 2007 10:11 PMOne final comment before I turn in. This question is addressed to the Republican leadership who read this blog. See, also comment #45 regarding Senator Allen. This is the comment my comments were directed at. Keep in mind JDH has a history
of bigoted posts:
42. I believe in letting libs speak for themselves. Get a look at this if you have a strong stomach.
http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/
Posted by JDH at June 13, 2007 07:29 PM
Now, is JDH the face of the republican party in regard to persons of color? Are you the party of bigots and bigotry? Are you purists not only in the ideological realm, but do you want other races supporting your candidates? Although, I look at each candidate as an individual there are many who wouldn't vote for a pubbie under any circumstances because in their perception you have a Macaca and JDH problem. I suppose the dems have Cindy Sheehan and you have JDH, I wonder which one is worse.
Posted by: WVH on June 15, 2007 01:00 AM2. If you have stopped reading my comments, why the need to respond?
3. Macaca/JDH is still a racist bigot and from your comments, I can only conclude you are an idiot.
4. Now, for the statement JDH wants people who are not like him eliminated, I stand by that statement. So, if your weasely bigoted friend hasn't got the balls to take me on directly and sends you out with your wimpy little comments that I'm not reading anything you write because you hurt David Duke Jr's feelings. Well, as the kids say. Bite me.
See the full article at this link Thought Police article
Here is a portion of the article...
'LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Will Bush veto 'thought police'?
Opponents say hate crimes plan would destroy American freedoms
Posted: May 3, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
� 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The nation's largest public policy women's group is asking President Bush to commit to a veto of a "hate crimes" plan that, as WND has reported, opponents fear would target Christians and be used to demolish both freedom of speech and religion in the United States.
"Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill," said former White House insider Chuck Colson in his Breakpoint commentary. "It's called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech � speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong."
The call for the veto promise came from leaders at Concerned Women for America, who said they have written to the president with their request, because Congress is poised to approve H.R. 1592 as early as today.
"This bill would grant individuals who engaged in homosexual behavior ("sexual orientation") or those who cross-dress ("gender identity") preferential treatment over other citizens by elevating them to a specially protected class of victim," the organization said.
"The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, regardless of their chosen sexual behaviors. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dresser do not receive equal protection under the law," the CWFA said.
"Victims are � and should be � treated equally in the justice system, regardless of their 'sexual orientation.' This 'hate crimes' bill would overturn this balance, creating second-class victims and a federal justice system that discriminates against grandmothers, children, women and men simply because they are heterosexual," said CWFA President Wendy Wright.'
Read the whole article, it is not exceptionally long, but it shows that once one accepts the imposition of "hate crimes", this is the slippery slope into pandora's box that is immediately opened.
As I and many others have said--prosecute the crime, not the thought.
Bill H
1. I am part of an evangelical group opposing that
particular piece of legislation. The original discussion on this thread began with the statement that this is a color-blind society. Comments on this thread give conclusive proof otherwise.
2. Now as to Pudge, buddy when is the prozac going to kick in? Your pal JDH is a bigot of the highest order. What I said and will continue to say and you can post your stupid rejoinder again is he wants all people not like him eliminated. So, if you want to continue to defend the bigot, have at it. Your rejoinder is a ploy/cover to deflect criticism. Now I'll save your typing fingers. WVH, until you apologize for saying JDH wants to kill people I:
a. Think you are a worthless piece of crap
b. refuse to recognize your existence
c. wish you would die a slow miserable death
pick any of the above.
Now, that Pudge and JDH are pretty much out of the picture, there are some serious issues to discuss.
Bill H, there was a coalition of Black clergy and other evangelicals who opposed the legislation you are describing because it prohibited expression by those who read the Bible literally.
Many of these same clergy, although, I have not conducted a poll probably would want not just people of color but others protected from being targeted on the basis of race, religion, or gender. The question is what will be the deterrence. Obviously, this thread shows that we do not have a color-blind society. So,
I still ask you the following questions:
1. Should society attempt to deter hate crime?
2. If you think hate crimes ahould be
deterred, how would you deter this category
of crime?
This is an portion of a speech by Bishop Harry Jackson which represents the views of many Black Evangelicals about the piece of legislation you describe. However, there is a portion of the speech which deals with traditional hate crime legislation. The questions I posed about how to deter hate crime is what he is referring to:
"Dear Friends, Clergy, Congressmen, and Press
We oppose HR 1592 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention ACT of 2007." Our position is that this legislation is indefinable, constitutionally suspect, unfair, un-American, and unnecessary.
I represent clergymen and people of faith from the Christian community who are making a stand for religious liberty. We have called this meeting to announce a major national campaign to protect the right of the Christian church to preach the gospel.
This law is unnecessary because there is already existing legislation in every state that deals with this issue. The Hate Crimes Prevention bills which are currently being put forth can be used in the future to censor the church and its ministers. This legislation will grant protected status to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." It is our belief that it will mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas. Let me explain.
Similar laws have are being enforced around the world with an anti-Christian bias. Although the proponents of the bill solemnly declare that Bible believing churches are not its target, I will mention several noticeable cases along with articles from credible sources to confirm my conclusions.
• In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was indicted, convicted and sentenced to 30 days because of a hate crime violation. Swedish laws are very strict with regard to hate speech and expressing contempt towards a person's sexual orientation. Pastor Greens simply read from the Bible and gave the Bible's view on homosexual practices at his Borgholm, Sweden church. No riots were incited or accounts of personal brutality towards gays occurred after his statements. He was punished based upon statements he made in a normal weekly service.
• In Australia, two evangelical pastors were charged with violating the state of Victoria's "hate crimes" laws last year for criticizing Islam. This "offence" took place as part of a Christian conference. Once again there were no riots or personal injury to Muslims as a result of the statements. The judge, contrary to logic, ruled that the pastors had incited "hatred and fear" against Muslims.
• In Canada, a Catholic city councilor was fined $1,000 for simply restating the church's teaching on homosexuality. He publicly stated that a gay couple's lifestyle was "not normal and not natural." His personal beliefs were deemed "hate speech" under Canada's hate crimes law.
As I think about the concepts of hate crime legislation in the past, I think about a judicial system that refused to give blacks equal justice under the law. The problem for blacks in the past was that racist groups conspired with law enforcement groups. Additional legislation would have never been necessary if the existing laws of the land had been enforced fairly...."
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070507/27279_Hate_Crimes_Bills:_Threat_to_the_Pulpit.htm
Posted by: WVH on June 15, 2007 10:17 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 16, 2007 05:16 AM1. You are correct that additional legislation
would not have been necessary IF there had
been enforcement. Can't the same thing be
said of immigration laws?
2. I still ask you the following questions:
1. Should society attempt to deter hate crime?
2. If you think hate crimes ahould be
deterred, how would you deter this category
of crime?
3. This thread started with a premise that we
live in a color-blind society. We do not.
In the real world, how does one protect
people in actuality, not in theory if the
authorities refuse to enforce existing
law or refuse to impose penalities? So,
theoretically, you don't embrace the
concept of hate crime or bias crime.
Theoretically, in this country, your butt
is not on the line. I suppose with a few
more years of Bush's immigration policy, your
butt may be on the line. Let's take a
place where they might come after you. I
believe in universals. The universal is
that it is wrong to target a person because
of their race, color, religion, creed, or
gender. If you as a Caucasian male go to
Zimbabwe, you will be targeted by Mugabe.
That is wrong. That country is fairly lawless
at this point. But, suppose there was a
functioning system of laws. Legally, should
anything be done to protect you? Currently,
there is no enforcement to protect you or
your property.
In the real world how are people who are targeted because of specific characteristics like race, religion, or gender protected?
That is exactly the issue that people do not like about the immigration legislation. The amnesty backers say that they will have these new laws for enforcing illegal immigration if only we will allow amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens already here. They are not credible on the issue because they have not been enforcing existing laws.
I think society should work to deter ALL crimes. I'd be in favor of additional deterence, especially for violent crimes, but not for treating some crimes differently because they are perpetrated against a particular favored group (whether that be by race, religion, national origin, or any other group).
I believe, as others have argued, that it is a violation of the 14th amendment that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think this moves society down a slippery slope that allows other "favored groups" to be included--as in Animal Farm (George Orwell), what results is that "all animals are equal, it's just that some animals are more equal than others."
Bill H
1. I asked you these questions, do you have
a response?
I still ask you the following questions:
a. Should society attempt to deter hate crime?
b. If you think hate crimes ahould be
deterred, how would you deter this category
of crime?
2. My understanding of your legal objection to
hate crimes is that in your opinion this
category violates the 14th Amendment and
free speech rights. Is that correct? This
is the case law:
This portion deals with the 14th Amendment,
site also has a discussion of free speech.
Other Constitutional Challenges
Several litigants have claimed that penalty enhancement or bias-motivated crimes statutes violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution11 because the statutes are unconstitutionally vague. The due process clause requires that a criminal statute give clear notice of what activity is proscribed and provide adequate guidelines to prevent arbitrary law enforcement actions. Primarily, these state cases have focused on the "by reason of" or "because of" language which triggers the bias motivation element of the crimes. Defendants argue that these clauses do not make clear when bigoted behavior will be punished. Because the statutes require the commission of an underlying crime, however, the state courts largely have rejected these claims.
Finally, several litigants have argued that state penalty enhancement or bias-motivated crimes statutes violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. These parties have suggested either that the statutes unconstitutionally benefit minorities, because minorities are more likely to be victims of bias crimes, or that the statutes unconstitutionally burden majority members because majority members are more likely to be prosecuted. In each case, the state court has rejected the argument, noting that the statute is neutral on its face and that the state has a legitimate interest in punishing hate crimes more severely. As previously noted, the defendant in Mitchell was Black and his victim was white.
The specific cases are listed at:
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp
3. There is a reason I asked you the specific questions at 1. They relate to a category of crime called crimes against humanity.
PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW
Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health....
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm
During the Nuremburg Trials, there were those making the arguments that you are making now. Should there have been a separate category of crimes against humanity? Should those who committ very evil acts be tried under local law?
Many here have made the argument that their consitutional rights have been violated? Just curious, do you make the same rights arguments on behalf of victims of lynchings in the south or
persons who are victims of crimes against humanity.
I suppose the question is whether in your world there is a category of evil that may require different treatment.
I said "I think society should work to deter ALL crimes. I'd be in favor of additional deterence, especially for violent crimes, but not for treating some crimes differently because they are perpetrated against a particular favored group (whether that be by race, religion, national origin, or any other group)."
I certainly think individuals and groups can and should shun people who have ideas that are abhorrent, but I don't think it is the place of government to do so unless it involves an incitement to violence--e.g. websites giving hit lists of abortion doctors. What I certainly do not think is that there should be enhanced penalties for certain crimes against certain victims. Just today, Michael Nifong was disbarred for his activity in prosecuting members of the Duke LaCrosse team. Race was injected in that prosecution and bastardized the whole investigation.
I don't have time to answer more fully...Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 16, 2007 03:20 PMOf course people's thoughts are important.
1. When you have time, do you have any comments
on the case law?
2. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but
"I said "I think society should work to deter ALL crimes. I'd be in favor of additional deterence, especially for violent crimes, but not for treating some crimes differently because they are perpetrated against a particular favored group (whether that be by race, religion, national origin, or any other group)." So, does this mean that the Nuremburg trials were out of order, in your mind, of course?
3."Michael Nifong was disbarred for his activity in prosecuting members of the Duke LaCrosse team. Race was injected in that prosecution and bastardized the whole investigation."
This is the substance of the amended bar complaint against Nifong:
"N.C. Bar Files Amended Ethics Complaint Against D.A.
Who Prosecuted Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Allegations
North Carolina State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong
January 24, 2007 Email This
Page 1 of 33
Lawyers
Douglas Brocker, Lawyer for N.C. Bar
D.A. Michael Nifong
The amended ethics complaint filed against Durham County, N.C. District Attorney Michael Nifong, whose office filed charges against members of Duke's Lacrosse team. The new charges allege that made approximately 150 statements to the media that he "knew or reasonably should have known... had a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the criminal adjudicative proceeding."
The charges also allege that Nifong and Dr. Brian Meehan, the president and director of a DNA analysis company, discussed and "agreed that the final [DNA analysis] report would not include all of the results of the tests and examinations performed by [the DNA lab] but would be limited only to the 'positive' results." The complaint alleges that these actions meant that "potentialy exculpatory DNA evidence and test results...would not be provided to the Duke Defendants,"their lawyers, and other player suspects.
According to the North Carolina Bar, this resulted in Nifong failing to comply with mandated discovery requirements, and him making "misrepresentations and false statements of material fact to the court."
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/duke/ncbnifong12407cmp.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are correct that there was a racial component to the case, however, that was not the reason Nifong was disbarred. He was disbarred because of prosecutorial misconduct. Had he committed the same acts and there was no racial component to the case, he would have still been disbarred. The principle issue for the North Carolina bar was the fact of misconduct, not the racial component.
This thread proves that this country no matter how far it has come is not color-blind. The discussion of race, even on a blog is a highly charged discussion.
Comment when time allows.
I think the Nuremburg trials are an entirely different subject, since they represent war crimes, not "normal" crimes--different rules apply during war time.
I have no comment on the case law you cited. I don't think the court has made clear decisions either way on this question. I put more stock in the clear language of the Constitution than on a particular court's view of it--for example the recent SCOTUS unanimous ruling overturning the Washington State Supreme Court on the Union issue. SCOTUS obviously had a different view in that case than the highest court in WA state.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 16, 2007 06:57 PMHeck, WVH even contradicted her own argument, when she noted that "crimes against humanity" are "directed against any civilian population." Not a racial or ethnic minority, not a protected class: any civilian population. Now, it is true that "crimes against humanity" can also be persecution of a protected class, but in the case of the Nazis, the other higher standard had already been reached.
As she's wrong to say that the Nuremberg defense had anything to do with anything you were saying: she was just making that up. That had nothing to do with the defense.
Posted by: pudge on June 16, 2007 09:37 PMThought I was on your Black list as it were and you weren't reading anything I wrote. I guess your vow of silence lasted a blog or New York minute.
1. Any comments on the case law?
2. The point of the the crimes against humanity
is that it is a type of hate crime legislation.
If you object to hate crime type legislation,
do you also object to crimes against humanity?
If you don't want trials based upon legislation
which is aimed at protecting specific groups
do you also object to the Nuremburg trials?
3. Now, you said when discussing crimes against humanity which is used in this context in terms of a category of types of laws:
"It is for any large-scale atrocities against a body of people, and if they had simply killed 10 million "dissidents" instead of mostly Jews and other national/ethnic minorities, the count still would have stood."
From the discussion of case law above at #69:
"In each case, the state court has rejected the argument, noting that the statute is neutral on its face and that the state has a legitimate interest in punishing hate crimes more severely. As previously noted, the defendant in Mitchell was Black and his victim was white."
You have heard of compare and contrast as well as categorization. The crimes against humanity laws
could be categorized as a type of hate crime
statute.
P.S.
"mentioning Nuremberg makes no sense in this context anyway, since almost none of the trials had anything to do with the fact that the Nazis targeted the Jews specifically."
I'm sure some of my Jewish friends would disagree with this statement.
Harvard Law School has a law project and the Holocast Museum in LA houses many original documents, so your statement about not targeting Jews specifically could probably use some further research. Here is the Cliff's Notes from answers:
"Nuremberg Trials
In the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946), an International Military Tribunal tried high Nazi officials for actions committed during World War II that contravened the accepted laws of war. Among the practices condemned were plotting and waging aggressive war, using slave labor, looting occupied countries, and abusing and murdering civilians (especially the Jews) and prisoners of war. The Allies' decision to try major Axis officials for war crimes had been announced in October 1943, when the American, British, and Russian foreign ministers met in Moscow. Planning for the trials began soon after V-J Day, and the tribunal opened in Nuremberg, Germany, on November 20, 1945, before a board of distinguished judges from the Allied countries. Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Josef Goebbels had committed suicide by that time, but Hermann Goering, Joachim Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Julius Streicher, Hjalmar Schacht, Martin Bormann (in absentia), and sixteen others were tried one by one for individually specified crimes.
Twenty-one of the 24 were convicted; of these, 12 were sentenced to hang and the remainder were sent to prison. Two of those condemned to death escaped execution--Goering by committing suicide and Bormann by remaining at large; the rest were hanged on October 16, 1946. Lesser officials were also tried, including officers and guards from the Dachau prison camp and civilians who had murdered American aviators. In all, 24 defendants were executed as a result of the Nuremberg trials, 128 were sent to prison, and 35 were acquitted. Similar trials in Tokyo (1946-1948) resulted in the hanging of 7 Japanese leaders and the imprisoning of 16.
The trials were criticized by many for retroactively criminalizing actions that had been legal, and even required under orders, at the time they occurred; to these critics, the trials appeared more like vengeance than impartial justice. But Robert Jackson, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and chief U.S. prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials, maintained that the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 had outlawed aggressive warfare; holding individuals accountable for their actions, he argued, would deter future aggression. This argument prevailed at Nuremberg and was subsequently supported by the United Nations."
http://www.answers.com/topic/nuremberg-trials
Glad that you are talking, you are building that pubbie coalition with every comment. I know Ivan is planning on victory.
Actually I am aware of the fact that Nifong used the case for racial purposes, in fact, I posted a comment here to that very effect, don't know if it is in the archives, but it was on the thread discussing the case. Guess what, politicians curry favor with groups all the time. This group just happened to be Black. Go to Chicago and pols there will curry favor with Poles, Italians, and Germans. So, you are telling me that you are shocked, truly shocked?
Prosecutorial misconduct is just as bad no matter the intended target. You are correct that the wealth of these particular accused allowed them to prove their innocence. Are you only outraged when the defendent is wealthy and Caucasian or does a poor accused victim of prosecutorial misconduct get your sympathy?
There is the technique of compare, contrast, and categorization which you used here:
"I have no comment on the case law you cited. I don't think the court has made clear decisions either way on this question. I put more stock in the clear language of the Constitution than on a particular court's view of it--for example the recent SCOTUS unanimous ruling overturning the Washington State Supreme Court on the Union issue. SCOTUS obviously had a different view in that case than the highest court in WA state."
Crimes against humanity laws are in essense one type of hate crime legislation.
Whether you agree with the case law or not, the law is what a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court say it is and they interpret the Consitution as well. So, if you don't like it, Oh, well. What you are saying is your interpretation of the Consitution is more correct than the Supremes. Forgot to ask, are you a lawyer and do you practice Cobstitutional law?
You, Pudge, and JDH are fairly interesting. I think you are more libertarian survivalist than conservative. It is going to be interesting to watch your species attempt to adapt to the changes that are coming to this country simply in terms of the demographic shift brought on by immigration.
Posted by: WVH on June 17, 2007 12:06 AM1. You say "Guess what, politicians curry favor with groups all the time. This group just happened to be Black. Go to Chicago and pols there will curry favor with Poles, Italians, and Germans. So, you are telling me that you are shocked, truly shocked?" The answer, is that in the case of a district attorney, yes, I am shocked. It should shock the conscience of anyone who is interested in justice. There is a big difference between a regular "pol" and a DA. And I would say that this case proved it since a regular "pol" probably would not have been disbarred and face criminal prosecution for "currying favor".
2. You then say "Prosecutorial misconduct is just as bad no matter the intended target. You are correct that the wealth of these particular accused allowed them to prove their innocence. Are you only outraged when the defendent is wealthy and Caucasian or does a poor accused victim of prosecutorial misconduct get your sympathy?" Where did you get the idea that I would not have sympathy for a non-wealthy, non-caucasian, defendent in a similar case? That was, in fact, my point. It took very good defense lawyers to put an end to this particular prosecutor's misconduct. Had that not occurred, he would still be in office and free to continue his misconduct in the future. This case may, and probably will, also have a positive effect on other statewide DA's to push them to act responsibly. From your tone should I conclude that you are only selectively outraged when a defendant is not caucasion and not wealthy? Who then is the one who supports equal justice?
And it wasn't just that "the wealth of these particular accused allowed them to prove their innocence", it went much further in that it allowed them to prove prosecutorial misconduct.
3. You say "Whether you agree with the case law or not, the law is what a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court say it is and they interpret the Consitution as well. So, if you don't like it, Oh, well. What you are saying is your interpretation of the Consitution is more correct than the Supremes." No, what I said, specifically, is "I don't think the court 'meaning SCOTUS' has made clear decisions either way on this question." SCOTUS has had conflicting opinions on the subject. You refer to state court decisions and I pointed out that "for example, the recent SCOTUS unanimous ruling overturning the Washington State Supreme Court on the Union issue. SCOTUS obviously had a different view in that case than the highest court in WA state." And even with SCOTUS, if 5 justices in black robes rule on a subject, yes, that is "the law". But that doesn't necessarily make them right. For example, Roe vs Wade is "the law of the land", but very few people think it was legally supportable decision, even those who agreed with the outcome. Also, a 5-4 decision of SCOTUS means that 4 justices disagreed with them.
Finally, no I am not a lawyer, but I have studied various aspects of the law and had much practical experience with it. One need not, and I would venture, should not need to be a lawyer to interpret the plain text of the constitution in conjunction with the Federalist Papers which give much background into the meaning. Of course the later amendments came well after the Federalist Papers.
Bill H
Well, there is something we both agree on that injustice is wrong no matter the race, creed, religion or economic status of the individual who is the victim of the injustice.
Finally, you are correct that there is both a political and legal dynamic to the Supremes. Even with four Justices disagreeing, the practical political effect is that the decision is the law of the land. However one feels about the category of legislation called bias or hate crime legislation, the political dynamic will be taken into consideration by the Court.
I suppose that what makes this country different from many is that both conservatives and progressives live with laws they don't like. People like eco-terrorists and some groups of the radical right have taken it upon themselves to engage in armed resistance to laws they do not like. This has been a most interesting thread.
Posted by: WVH on June 17, 2007 11:19 AM"I suppose that what makes this country different from many is that both conservatives and progressives live with laws they don't like. People like eco-terrorists and some groups of the radical right have taken it upon themselves to engage in armed resistance to laws they do not like." Yes, much better to have discussions on forums such as this than "guns in the street".
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 17, 2007 11:43 AM