28
Hate Crimes
Category: Current Events, Democrats, Government Madness, Liberalism, PoliticsFor whatever reasons, the Senate voted yesterday to attach hate crimes legislation to a pending defense authorization bill. I think I am correct in assuming this legislation will enable states to prosecute attacks on homosexuals, blacks, reds, blues, and maybe even individuals with wooden legs. I find it peculiar that this sort of legislation would be attached to a most important defense bill. What kind of games are the Democrats now playing with our soldiers well being and our nation’s security?
I read that the Republicans say the matter of hate crimes legislation should be left to the states and the federal government should stay out of it. I must say I feel the same way but I also take further issue with these so-called hate crimes. Am I correct that hate crimes criminalizes thought and sets up different classes of victims in our country? How can this be in
This whole hate crimes thing reminds me George Orwell’s book 1984 first published in 1949 which I read in the 1960’s. Back then I thought to myself, “How could this ever happen in
If I were to be mugged by a gang of white skinhead homosexuals because one of them said I looked like Robert DiNiro (he’s not gay, not that there is anything wrong with that), who would be the victim of this hate crime? More than likely it would be me because I’m just an ordinary law abiding straight white guy whose victimhood isn’t classified by the federal government. Sure sounds like “equal protection under the law” to me. This country is going mad.
Sphere: Related Content
Hate crimes legislation has been in place for years. It does NOT criminalize thought. (I.e. you are perfectly free to despise blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, etc as much as you like.)
The way that the legislation works typically is that someone who has committed a violent crime (note: already a criminal act!) will have the crime tried as one degree greater if it can be proved that the victim was selected by the perpetrator because of an actual or perceived status as a member of a protected class.
Classes that are protected will include all human beings. That is, since religion is covered, a Jew who assaults a Christian because the victim is Christian is treated exactly the same as a Christian who assaults a Jew for being Jewish. If either were to just say that the other was a perfect example of why that group were vile, sub-human, etc, then the law wouldn’t come into play. (Because saying mean things isn’t a crime, therefore there is no crime to elevate.)
So if it could be established that you had been assaulted by a group of gay men because you were straight, then the proposed legislation would cover you equally as if the sexual orientations were the other way around. All human beings (even those who are asexual) have a sexual orientation. Therefore, the law doesn’t give ANYONE special rights. The law currently covers all races; it doesn’t give any different penalties for any particular races. And it does NOT criminalize anyone for thinking anything.
Does this criminalize intent for people who are already committing violent/criminal acts? Sure! But we already judge intent when classifying crimes (i.e. X performs actions which results in Y’s death. The crime that X is charged with varies with what their intention was, whether it was premeditated.) Therefore if one opposes hate crimes legislation, then one should also be forced to collapse all categories of homicide (manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder) into a single category. One would also be obligated to repeal hate crime legislation that has already existed for decades.
In many cases, local or state governments may not have the resources or inclinations to adequately prosecute these crimes.
If the attackers on 9/11 had simply been out to extort money from a particular airline or some other reason, it wouldn’t have had such profound threats to others. If someone assaults someone of a different race, religion or sexual orientation because of personal enmity, then it doesn’t threaten the group that the victim belongs to. (And it isn’t enough to simply note that the victim and assailant belong to different groups; there has to be evidence that the person was selected because of belonging to a particular group. Perpetrators do indeed sometimes give very clear indications why they are targeting their victims.)
So, you are incorrect in claiming that someone can be criminalized solely for what they think. The law also doe NOT create classes in which only SOME categories within that class are protected. Caucasians are protected to the exact same degree that racial minorities are protected. Christians (note! a category that is NOT biologically determined) are protected to the same degree as religious minorities, and heterosexuals would be equally protected to the same degree as non-straights.
Michael,
Thank your for your view on hate crimes. In a perfect world what you say may have some merit and no doubt from your comment, you have some strong feelings regarding hate crimes. However, I respectfully disagree with you and see it quite differently. Hate crimes are nothing more than prosecuting a person on their thoughts and beliefs, depending on the situation and how the prosecutor feels that day, and it is wrong. It is Big Brother at it’s finest and is geared as retribution from liberal victim lobby’s in this country.
Furthermore, legislation like this should not be attached to a pending defense authorization bill. I think it is underhanded and it certainly smells like a political maneuver by the Democrats. This do nothing congress is a disgrace and it is no wonder it has a lower approval rating than President Bush. With that said, both congress and Bush deserve their low approval ratings.