The American Spectator

ncatty| 7.17.09 @ 12:23PM

Does it make it a crime to hate Democrats?

Siegfried X| 7.17.09 @ 12:25PM

We have one party government. Just two slightly different flavors.

Marc Jeric| 7.17.09 @ 12:52PM

I remember my former communist country where a joke against the Leader got you 20 years of Gulag. Well, we are getting there, step by step.

Bill Pearce| 7.17.09 @ 1:15PM

You can bet your bottom dollar the “Hate Crimes Amendment” is a new hammer which will be used to bash anything white and/or conservative. It is a given the laws will not be used against anyone on the political left or against people of color. The laws target is the “White Male Patriarchies” and the conservative right by the criminalization of free speech. If you are reading TAS, you are the target. I suggest good legal consul.

Bill Pearce| 7.17.09 @ 1:25PM

To: Ncatty

Why yes it soon will be a crime to hate Democrats or any one on the political left.
The First Amendment of the Constitution will soon only apply to the political left's favored groups.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 1:52PM

I wish there were more of a movement among citizens -- conservative and liberal -- to terminate Congress's practice of bundling legislative acts together in the gigantic bills. Republicans and Democrats both do it, and deciding whose worse is hopeless.

On hate crime legislation in general:

Conservatives -- once the party of "law and order" -- often disapprove of hate crime legislation, on the grounds that it seems like the state is outlawing certain kinds of thought or speech.

This is understandable.

However, hate crime legislation seeks to ensure that the entirety of certain kinds of crime are acknowledged by the law.

If I squiggle spay paint on the door of a synogogue, I vandalize. I should be punished for vandalism.

If I paint a swastika on the door of a synogogue, I vandalize. However, I also strike fear and uncertainty into the Jewish community. A Jewish person can reasonably ask, "Is it safe to let my children walk to school? Is it safe to be out after dark? When will those who hate us arrive with torches or baseball bats to pull us from our beds?"

The law must comprehend a crime that threatens people, gives people good reason to fear for their safety. It must recognize all of the victims of a crime, and it must punish the crime justly.

Hate crime legislation does in fact "federalize" certain crimes because often states have refused -- for whatever reason -- to hold people accountable for their crimes.

The legislation just passed does NOT remove power from the states to prosecute these crimes. It simply gives power to federal prosecutors to prosecute them if the state fails to.

Tim| 7.17.09 @ 3:30PM

Lib
Now that was well reasoned, and no insults either. Keep up the good work.

tonypal| 7.17.09 @ 3:59PM

Lib Reader:

It was somewhat well reasoned, but still incorrect.

"The law must comprehend a crime that threatens people, gives people good reason to fear for their safety. It must recognize all of the victims of a crime, and it must punish the crime justly."

You simply cannot extrapolate from a single act of violence that a neighborhood, community or group of people is under threat. That can only be established through either a pattern of violence or specific threats made against a community or group. Now, with respect to the latter, there are laws on the books that deal with threats. You are not protected by the 1st amendment if you make a terroristic threat. All states have severe penalties for such threats

I am not a big believer in most "slippery slope" theories, but hate crimes legislation is something that is truly frightening and detestable. It punishes thoughts, as opposed to acts. Now you might respond by saying that most crimes have a "mens rea" component, but understand that there must also be an "actus reus." In other words, while a guilty mind (mens rea) generally must be shown in order to convict, a guilty mind alone is never enough.

Hell, even if you are involved in a conspiracy, provided you do not carry out the ultimate aims of the conspiracy, you've committed no crime. You may have committed crimes in preparation for the conspiracy, but you cannot be convicted of the conspiracy without the act.

Getting back to the slippery slope argument, is it so difficult to envision a day in the near future where any criminal act by someone against a protected minority class will trigger additional penalties? So for example I burglarize the home of a black family because I know they have items of great value. Some overzealouz prosecutor charges me, a white guy, with a hate crime. Looks good on his record, especially if he gets the conviction. If you think overzealous prosecutors looking to score points with minorities don't exist, talk to the Duke lacrosse team.

So as we head down the slope, what's next? Will we start to punish the use of certain words that we're all familiar with. How often have you heard a minority talk about how the use of a particular racial slur hurts them. Under the concept of hate crimes, why should we not seek to punish those who inflict mental harm on someone through the use of a racial slur? Again, if you don't think it's possible, consider the fact that using the word "psycho" in the UK is a punishable offense, as are many other words deemed to inflict mental cruelty.

Far too many liberals who would punish thought crimes would excuse acts of extreme violence by certain groups of people because of "historically" discriminatory treatment. Violent acts should be punished vigorously.We should reserve punishment of hateful thoughts for the court of public opinion.

tonypal| 7.17.09 @ 4:02PM

Correction:

Acts of conspiracy are punishable if you make substantial progress in committing the actual act. You do not necessarily have to complete the act.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 4:24PM

Tonypal --

I don't understand the need for a conspiracy or pattern of acts.

Consider this:

A group of white teenagers beats a hispanic man. While they beat him, they call him "Spic" and they tell him to "go back to Mexico."

The hispanic man survives his beating and returns home. He tells his wife, his family and friends, that he was beaten by men who hate hispanics. Obviously they didn't just want HIM to "go back to Mexico." They hate all "spics."

So, the ENTIRE community might reasonably infer that THEY are next. That the baseball bats will find them, or their children, next, and that the violence directed at one could very well be directed at any one of them at any time.

This crime is more than just an assault on one man.

The law must account for all the victims of a crime, and people who have every reason to believe that one act of violence will be followed by another are in fact victims of a crime. Hate crime legislation codifies that crime and recognizes it and redresses it. That's justice.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 4:30PM

By the way, my hypothetical above is not at all far fetched.

Crimes just like the one I describe have been occurring at a horrifying rate on Long Island and New Jersey.

Mostly the assailants have been teenagers in these crimes. But the effect of intimidation and menace is felt by hispanic people who deserve to have a sense of being protected by the law. That is, in fact, the function of the law at its most basic.

MattSwartz| 7.17.09 @ 5:10PM

Liberal Reader,
Your comments about hate crimes do address a real concern. There is a sense in which certain crimes are designed to intimidate whole segments of the community, and that is a concern that should be taken into account by prosecutors. Under the law, they have a lot of leeway to do that, and hopefully, they will. If they don't do a good job of that, then they should be publicly shamed for failing to do so.

What should not happen, however, is the creation of a special legal class of federal crimes, the prosecution of which would be subsidized by the Feds, based on the conceit that the lawmakers will always get it right in the construction of a single, one-size-fits-all law.

I don't like the concept of jiggering with the idea of common law because of a perception that the federal government will apply it better than prosecutors all over the country will.

Crusader| 7.17.09 @ 5:43PM

Hat crimes legislation is simply anti-White "payback" (or guilt) legislation. Consider this:

A group of 50 or so black teenagers swoop upon a family of Whites and beat them while chanting "It's a black man's world now." The local sheriff stated there is no indication the attack was motivated by race. This recently happened in Ohio.

Now, if a White guy looks at a black woman the wrong way, he gets 5 years for "hate crimes." In Amerika now we protect the under/criminal class and punish the productive class. Its as simple as that.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 8:26PM

Matt --

I share your concern. I understand that there are good arguments against these laws. I don't think it's open and shut, and I think you raise a very important issue. We must be equal before the law, or else it really isn't the law anymore.

However, when the crime has in a sense been directed at a class of people or group, I think the law has to act to protect that class or group.

Crusader --

I recommend you read Matt and tonypal above. Notice the absence of paranoid gibberish in their posts. That's sort of what people mean by making reasonable arguments.

There is no law, I assure you, jackass, that would incarcerate a white man for looking at a black man.

There were, however -- and it's funny you should bring it up -- punishments in the south during Jim Crow that punished black men for -- you got it -- so much as maintaining eye contact with white women.

That sort of thing is behind us, thank God. And the innings of people who think like you, Sir, are almost up. Take a stretch!

tonypal| 7.17.09 @ 9:00PM

Liberal Reader:

First, I used the crime of conspiracy as an example of thought crime. I was in no way implying that hate crime is a conspiracy. Also, I would suggest you do a little research into the meaning of the word "assault." It has a very specific meaning, requiring an immediate show of force. How can someone who isn't present apprehend the immediate show of force? Words have meanings and criminal acts require specific elements to exist before they become criminal acts.

Your example indicates precisely what is wrong with hate crime laws. Under your scenario, you would be punishing the original perpetrators for the hypothetical crimes of others. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that such a crime that you describe could incite fear. However, the way you deal with such a heinous crime is by applying the full force of the law, convicting the perpetrators and sentencing them to some real serious time.

I find your statement "The law must account for all the victims of a crime, and people who have every reason to believe that one act of violence will be followed by another are in fact victims of a crime" to be chilling. This is the classic liberal formulation that based on one's skin color or ethnicity, you are automatically a victim of society. There is simply no way to predict that the commission of one crime will necessarily lead to another. Again, no matter how heinous the crime and no matter the motivation, your type of reasoning would have us believe that the perpetrators of one crime should receive extra punishment for the the yet to be committed acts of others.

As for criminal acts directed at specific groups of people, there are federal laws dealing with civil rights violations. Victims of such crimes, or their families, should petition federal prosecutors to investigate such crimes.

Hate crime laws serve no other purpose than to kiss the butts of activist groups that pour vast amounts of money into the coffers of politicians on the left. They are a clear violation of the 1st amendment, which liberals supposedly love, yet conveniently ignore when given an opportunity to pander to leftist activists with open checkbooks.

tonypal| 7.17.09 @ 9:07PM

Liberal Reader:

I just read your response to Matt and came across the following: "However, when the crime has in a sense been directed at a class of people or group, I think the law has to act to protect that class or group."

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is already covered by existing laws that protect the civil rights of protected classes, an offshoot of the post Civil War constitutional amendments, number 13-15.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 9:41PM

tonypal -

As you know, the 1st amendment is not absolute, and an "originalist" reading would certainly conclude it was intended to protect primarily political speech.

Leaving that aside, threats are something other than speech. Threats function as "alarms." (The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.)

Go back to my swastika on a synagogue. Are you saying I should only be convicted of vandalism?

The swastika's intent is to intimidate -- really to terrorize -- the Jewish community.

In fact, there is a connection here with terrorism, and that act, the act of terrifying people, of limiting their liberty and sense of security by violent acts is rightly punished criminally.

If we only convict the teenagers who beat the Hispanic man, we do not account for the crime against his neighbor who now has to fear for himself and his family. That's lawlessness.

I'm not attempting to create a new protected class, although I admit it's easier to make a case for hate crimes with crimes directed at traditionally protected groups. And that's just the point: a small minority that has been the target of hatred and abuse is more likely to be targeted by hate crimes. The fact that the group targeted has separate laws concerning affirmative action or discrimination -- or whatever -- shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever. We're talking about an objective, actual, tangible crime: the crime of sowing discord, the crime of threat and menacing, and the crime of depriving people of a sense of security.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 9:43PM

TYPO: I mean -- if we only convict the teenagers of assault, we do not fully account for the damage they've done to people.

Liberal Reader| 7.17.09 @ 9:48PM

Rare Liberal Mea Culpa:

I think during the 70s and 80s liberals drifted into a fantasy land when it comes to law and order issues, and I think they've taken too long to correct their errors.

For too long liberals did not adequately account for the terrible toll crime takes on communities and families, and the results of this for cities especially was utterly disastrous.

I think hate crime legislation is a straight-up law and order question.

The government is NOT prosecuting me because of what I think or say under hate crimes statutes. It punishing me for the criminal effect of my words or actions.

MattSwartz| 7.18.09 @ 12:36AM

I'm just relieved that Crusader is doing his part to warn us about the dangers of Hat Crimes against whites.

We need to nip this type of thing in the bud...

Also, descriptions of out-of-the-ordinary, obscure events are best recieved when they're accompanied by links to news stories. All sorts of things, true and untrue, get passed along in E-Mail.

Angel| 7.18.09 @ 1:16AM

The Conservatives argue in good faith; LibReader seeks to propagandize. Lib Reader/Jeremiah is an Axelrod astroturfing schmuck.

Crusader had it right (except for the spelling): Hate crime legislation is anti- Conservative payback that seeks to control thought, speech and actions.

Marc Jeric (noble patriotic American) posted the inevitable end result: You give fascist liberals an inch and pretty soon you're in a Gulag.

Angel| 7.18.09 @ 1:17AM

The Conservatives argue in good faith; LibReader seeks to propagandize. Lib Reader/Jeremiah is an Axelrod astroturfing schmuck.

Crusader had it right (except for the spelling): Hate crime legislation is anti- Conservative payback that seeks to control thought, speech and actions.

Marc Jeric (noble patriotic American) posted the inevitable end result: You give fascist liberals an inch and pretty soon you're in a Gulag.

Angel| 7.18.09 @ 1:18AM

The Conservatives argue in good faith; LibReader seeks to propagandize. Lib Reader/Jeremiah is an Axelrod astroturfing schmuck.

Crusader had it right (except for the spelling): Hate crime legislation is anti- Conservative payback that seeks to control thought, speech and actions.

Marc Jeric (noble patriotic American) posted the inevitable end result: You give fascist liberals an inch and pretty soon you're in a Gulag.

Angel| 7.18.09 @ 1:23AM

I liked my comment so much I posted it THREE times.

To my fellow Conservatives, my apologies; to Jeremiah, my scorn .

Motown Mike| 7.18.09 @ 8:56AM

A flaw with hate crimes legislation is the application of the liberal concept of intentions, whether those intentions be good or bad. Many liberals have good intentions about helping the poor, but do not give as much to charity as many conservatives – but in the mind of many liberals, the good intentions are what count. Same thing with bad intentions: my intention (my thoughtcrime) becomes a gauge of the severity of the crime. To illustrate: there’s the scene in that old Truman Capote book “In Cold Blood” where one of the punks who killed the Kansas farm family said something like “I thought Mr. Clutter was a very nice man right up to the time I slit his throat.” Such language indicates the criminal had no personal malice or “hate” against Mr. Clutter. He just felt a need to kill him and his family so there would be no witnesses to what was a robbery attempt. Nothing personal – I just want your money. Using the logic of hate crime law, because the criminals had no personal malice against their victims, a mitigating circumstance was created. Who knows? Because it wasn’t “personal,” perhaps the criminals should not have been executed, but should have received prison time instead. Of course that’s nonsense: the murderers may not have had personal malice against the Clutter family, but through their actions they demonstrated an overwhelming evidence of hate by taking their lives. Hate (or love) are reflected in actions, not intentions. Regarding the issue of the swastika on the synagogue: I have no problem with a prosecutor using terroristic threatening laws or similar legislation to go after the perpetrators because, as Liberal Reader pointed out, this is clearly something more serious than an act of vandalism. Even there we have to then determine if the desecration of the synagogue was in fact an act of terrorism or a prank by 13-year-olds unaware of a the seriousness of what they were doing. As we have seen in the misapplication of sexual harassment laws against the kindergartener who gives another student an unwanted kiss, there is a need for discretion in specific circumstances.Regarding perpetrators voicing racial slurs while beating someone, I think a judge can view them as aggravating circumstances while he or she makes sentencing decisions on what is a serious crime: physical violence. As a result, the community is assured that the seriousness of racial attacks is recognized. Yet, the main thrust of the law is to address the issue of physical violence (the action of hate, not the intention). The law is better equipped to deal with actions (based upon evidence and testimony) than it is to deal with intentions. And I haven’t even addressed the unconstitutionality of the whole double jeopardy thing.

tonypal| 7.18.09 @ 11:00AM

Liberal Reader:

With respect to your example of the swastika painted on a synagogue, local and state legislatures should deal with that by creating laws specifically designed to deal with that type of public intimidation. But what you seek is broad, generalized federal laws that will allow every two-bit prosecutor to score political points with the local NAACP, etc.

Again, what you do with your swastika example is empower prosecutors to become mind readers. Let me ask you this: What happens if the swastika was painted by a couple of stupid teenagers who thought it would be kind of funny? Were they really seeking to intimidate an entire neighborhood of Jews, or are they simply a couple of immature vandals? If it was your kid, which way would you argue?

Another argument I would make is that these types of laws violate the 10th amendment. The federal government simply has no business telling states how to deal with these types of issues. The fed. gov. passes these laws using the cover of the Commerce Clause, but that requires a showing of economic impact that is not confined to a single state. I think you'll have a tough time demonstrating such impact.

In your previous reply to me, you mention the 1st amendment in passing, as if it's really not that important. On the contrary, it's absolutely critical to the analysis. The 1st amendment protects much more than political speech. It protects the thoughts and opinions of citizens. In order to win people over, you're going to have to convince us that a persons thoughts and words should somehow be subject to punishment.

Lastly, you still haven't addressed my main point, which is the prosecution of individuals for the hypothetical crimes of others. To say a person should be prosecuted because others may now feel intimidated and scared is very dangerous thinking because it is far too open ended. I'm sure you know people in your life whom you regard as overly sensitive. While I don't dismiss the concerns of people who have reason to believe they could be in danger, that's no reason to make some guilty for yet to be committed sins of others.

W. James Antle III| 7.18.09 @ 4:04PM

Which in effect federalizes crimes that are constitutionally outside federal jurisdiction.