Eric Holder Demagogues Hate Crimes
Eric Holder can’t seem to do squat for transparency, privacy, accountability or a plethora of other ills carried over from the Bush/Cheney Administration, but he is concerned that we need more hate crime laws:
"Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed brazen acts of violence, committed in places that many would have considered unthinkable," Holder told the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
He cited separate attacks over a two-week period that killed a young soldier, an abortion provider and a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
…
In order to stop that violence, he said, Congress should past an updated version of hate crimes legislation, in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
Yeah, that bunk ought to really stop Tiller’s killer, the Arkansas recruiting center shooter and the von Brunns of the world from committing murders when that piddly old first degree murder capital offense with the death penalty couldn’t. Okay, I want to be completely honest, the District of Columbia does not have the death penalty, but it certainly has life in prison available for the offense of premeditated murder. Both Kansas and Arkansas, the locations of the other two heinous crimes, do indeed have the death penalty for such offenses. What exactly does Eric Holder think the "hate crimes" he is demagoguing about are going to do for deterrence that the death penalty or life in prison won’t?
I have a problem with "hate crime" laws. We already have laws for assault and battery, murder, intimidation etc. The same conduct, and level of conduct, should not have different laws and heightened penalties because it is targeted to a minority or other protected group. Why is the assault of a black worth more than an assault on on a white? Why is an assault on a gay man any more heinous than an assault on a straight? Why is one group of human beings entitled to more protection under the law than another? Yet, that is exactly what hate crime legislation does. This really flies in the face of the quintessential Constitutional and founding concepts of equal protection, fundamental fairness and all men being created equal.
The Supreme Court disagrees, but that is my take. And no matter what your view, I would argue that Eric Holder and the United States Department of Justice have far more important tasks to attend to right now, and they have been failing miserably on most.
By the way, Eric Holder is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning at 10:00 am EST.
The idea of “Hate Crimes” is buried in the history of the Civil Rights efforts in US History, and I suspect that viewed through this lens, having them becomes quite rational.
Between the 1880’s and the 1950’s, we had somewhere between 3500 and 5000 lynchings in this country (that’s those we can count), that involved murder, and we had no convictions at all, and very few indictments. In 1955 we had the well covered by national and international journalists trial in Mississippi of Emmett Till’s murderers, which involved the Jury taking a little less than an hour to have a couple of cokes, and then return with the not guilty verdict. Murder was not a federal crime unless it involved kidnapping across a state border. In fact, Kennedy’s assassination was not even a Federal Crime in 1963, had Oswald lived, he would have been tried under Texas Law with a Texas Jury. The argument against a Federal Murder crime was all about states rights, which were fundamentally more important than the civil rights of either a president or a black kid visiting relatives from Chicago.
We had attempted an anti-Lynching Bill in the 1930’s as a Federal Crime to be tried by a Federal Prosecutor, but while it passed the House twice, it never got a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Southern Seniority made it possible to simply not grant the bills a hearing. In fact if you look at the proposed bills in these two efforts, they were actually quite like what we now call Hate Crimes bills — and in the 1960’s when we were putting together the 64 Civil Rights Bill, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights adopted the same approach. Murder driven by racism is simply the key for getting into Federal Court — not for Murder itself, but for a civil rights violation. It means that even if you have Emmett Till style state courts and juries, you still have a potential key to the Federal Courthouse. Most state laws regarding hate crimes try the offense at the same time as the core crime, with a judicial or jury finding of hate crime offenses being an “add on” to the eventual state guideline sentence. But having the possibility of an independent
Federal trial on just the hate crime matters, does allow a back door around some of the great racist flaws in state practice. It isn’t a particularly neat solution — one would wish that somehow we could find non-racist Prosecutors and Juries, elect or appoint non-racist judges — but for some strange reason that had not exactly happened, and when you dig down into the statistics, not just the celebrity cases, you find racial disparities all over the system, yep, even in the 21st Century.
In the case of George Tiller’s murderer, apparently the Judge, before he became a Judge, was rather active in the anti-Abortion movement. That is apparently not a disqualification. The one thing that potentially keeps the Kansas proceedings from essentially pandering to excusing the murder of Tiller is the real possibility of Federal prosecution for something less than murder, but still larded with a potentially stiff sentence.
Of course what I would hope Eric Holder would do in Kansas is call a Grand Jury, and investigate the Tiller Case in detail for the signs of conspiracy on the part of anti-Abortion organizations. I suspect that in the bowels of the Patriot Act are lots of possible charges for “Material Support of….” that could be of some interest in a Federal prosecution.
Hate crimes were not defined by Federal legislation:
So Federal legislation is right around the corner. Indeed, as many criminals cross state lines, these become prosecutable under Federal Statutes anyway. But I agree very much that restoring the rule of law is a far more important task for Holder than urging Federal legislation at this time.
What I really want to know is this: How is the incidence of hate crimes influenced by selective or lax enforcement, by local, state and Federal agents? What are the attitudes of law enforcement itself?
That would be a job and a half for a national survey organization. And until those statistics are assembled, we will have no proof that these organizations have actually failed to do their jobs, not in selective enforcement, but in a failure of preemption. Standing down from confrontation of militias has yielded all kinds of rich coalescence among extremist malefactors in small cells. But what Holder is really implying is called crime suppression, and it will be interesting to see the results in the near future.
I wonder if torture is considered a hate crime
That is easy. The answer is yes, it would for torture of some victims, but not for the torture of others.
So you mean if I tortured Cheney it would be a hate crime but if he tortured me it wouldn’t?
You poor, be-knighted soul: that’s such an outrageous suggestion, you should have your blog-posting license suspended indefinitely.
If Cheney wanted you tortured, it would obviously have been a necessary incident to his oath of office to preserve and protect Americans from possible anxiety, rational or otherwise.
Plus: the very idea he’d do it himself — harrumph. I’d expect he didn’t even KNOW you; or if he did, he couldn’t be expected to recall [xref: John Edwards, 2004 Vice-presidential debate]. No: rest assured it would have been by someone you’ve never heard of; in a place you’d never expect screams to escape; by an expert, or at least an enthusiast; with tools specially designed for the purpose, fully funded under the provisions of classified budgetary items; and all robustly authorized by a legal opinion to follow.
Given your face a slap.
I fully understand the genesis of the concept of hate crimes; still do not like them. Federal juries back in those days would have acted as irresponsible as state juries, I do not accept that as an enabling rationale. I also do not accept that contorting the Constitutional principle of equal protection and its corollary here, fundamental fairness, is (or was) the correct way to go about establishing or protecting civil rights. Differential treatment for suspect classes in criminal cases does not work for me. As I noted in the post, the Supreme court, and many others, disagree. This is a long time issue for me; I jousted with people behind an early hate crimes bill here in the 80s and, have represented people charged with violations and have never found cause to change my opinion. Still don’t. It creates separate classes where none should exist in my eyes.
As to your last paragraph, that I can agree with.
bmaz,
I can agree with you wholeheartedly on this.
Right now I am visiting family in SC. SC has the death penalty. The solicitors like it because it makes for good re-election PR. The defense lawyers like it because it means some real money paid by the State. Never mind how much it costs or how many “sure fire” cases have been eventually overturned.
I personally think that the reason for the push on hate crime legislation by Holder and his boss is to set the stage for legislating “hate speech” crimes. Like in Germany, or even Britain, or the EU in general.
Say something that is proscribed by law, whether because of foolishness, sincere belief, or just to vent a little, and they will come get you.
In fact some places in the EU, you can just “deny” a particular belief, and they put you down pretty hard.
There’s the rub all right.
what you said:
And that, sir, is fearmongering and paranoia, particularly in ACLUmerica. Hate speech laws would be the nonstarter on our shores.
“Hate crimes” legislation sounds like another shiny object. It distracts from the organizational, staffing, morale and budgetary work at the DoJ that should be Holder’s primary concern. Without his focus on that, there won’t be the staff or process support to defend the laws already on the books.
Moreover, hate crime is a way to federalize state criminal laws. Bobby Kennedy needed that sort of help to enforce basic justice for blacks in a South that thought separate but unequal was better justice than they deserved. But I don’t see how his and Eric Holder’s circumstances are parallel.
Among Holder’s top ten priorities should be stopping his and Bush’s USA’s from turning common, petty acts of state politicians of either party into a federal crime. That’s the sort of thing used to prosecute Cyril Wecht and Don Siegelman.
This gambit may be Holder girding up to slay old dragons or to pay new debts. It seems to distract from the gargantuan task of turning round the DoJ and rebuilding respect for the law and the laws trashed by his immediate predecessors.
It’s pretty obvious that interdiction and preemption of terrorism (homegrown, domestic and international) through local and State policing are going to make us safer. That is the real issue that Holder alludes to, for in making hate crimes (which are essentially domestic terrorism) Federally prosecutable, enforcement, through strategic alliances, becomes not just instrumental but essential.
Andrew Bacevich made the case in several volumes (The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism that local community policing, coordinated with State Bureaus of investigation, tracking criminals and trading key information with Federal and international counterparty intelligence agencies, will be cheap and strategically effective.
I don’t mean to say we don’t face a mounting wall of hate. Just domestically, we are in for a world of economic change and decline. That spells pain for a lot of people, who will have the few emotional resources to manage it peacefully.
That churning pot is being put on the boil by demagogues such as O’Reily and Limbaugh, and by the probable growth of the traditional violent extremists that plague any society. (Hence the recent DHS report.) That we now have hundreds of thousands more combat experienced service personnel means the few prone to criminal violence will have technical competence not available earlier.
But is national hate crime legislation an efficient way to confront this problem? I think not. Laws are only as good as people’s respect for them. Cheney, for example, had no respect for most of them and he ignored them, broke them, shattered them. Rebuilding the DoJ, rebuilding respect for the law and for the non-partisan professionalism of federal and state prosecutors seem far more important tasks for Holder than more legislation to make state crimes federal crimes.
BTW. How can Eric Holder recommend further hate crimes legislation when he refuses to investigate or prosecute state sanctioned torture and criminal domestic spying? Isn’t that a bit ancien regime? – send the stealers of bread and candlesticks to the galleys, but give an earldom to the king’s torturer or his bankster friends? A better way to put the law into disrepute than hypocrisy and two-tiered “justice” I find hard to imagine.
This is a recurring theme, led by the same cult who led us into war, under the cloak of religion and human rights.
This is all about limiting speech – specifically, the right to call out Israel as a rouge nation that commits crimes at will, without recourse.
Not matter how many other ways you hear it explained to you, the actors behind the curtain (ADL/AIPAC) all work for Israel in one form or another, as does Congress – clearly.
It should be obvious enough by the pattern that they rely on events such as these to jam legislation such as this back into the wheels of Congress, and will continue to do so until they get it passed, and in so doing, ensure that no one ever dares criticize Israel again.
Mark these words. This comment will be illegal under new hate crimes legislation. Let that sink in, and contemplate THAT America.
If it fails this time, they will keep coming back – attacking our freedoms, until we have none.
Trust me, this isn’t about gays or any other group. They just use others to achieve their ends. Sort of like they did with the US Military and our tax dollars to acquire the territory and resources of the Middle East (all under false pretense).
Here’s a better version of the Paul Craig Roberts article, with many links to additional resources.
ADL Welcomes State Department Report On Global Anti-Semitism
Question the dual-citizenship of US officials in the halls of Congress or the Intelligence community – go to prison.
Mention AIPAC’s control of Congress – go to prison.
Repost a news article about Israeli spies caught red-handed on the streets of America. Go to prison.
Think anyone in the DEA will ever again dare publish a report like this?
Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
Think 20/20 or any other mainstream media outlet will ever again dare to run with a story like this?
Kiss your free speech goodbye.
Creeping Fascism – In Germany, They Thought They Were Free – But Then It Was Too Late.
“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.
“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.
“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”
I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.
Are you offering a warning, rank fearmongering or a sentimental look backward?
Here, paranoid, read wiki, and know that I am your brother, and I will stand up with you, too:
You stated above that hate speech laws would be forbidden on our shores.
What’s this about then (from my #16)?
Institutionalized speech monitoring inside the United States Government. It’s already here…now. That’s Gregg Rickman being sworn to uphold the Constitution, by SECRETARY OF STATE Condi Rice.
This is tangentially related, but if anyone hasn’t read this excellent Salon article on white supremacists in the military, it’s well worth reading. As we’ve suspected, the military has loosened standards to make its recruiting goals. But that means it is accepting a lot of people who would otherwise be excluded. One of the issues is whether tattoos of clear supremacist symbols will exclude people anymore–and the balance between First Amendment and military rules that exclude supremacists. Of course, once they’re in, it means you and I are paying to train them to wage war against our country.
It’s actually a three-year-old story. The bigger question in my mind is the fact that an old story has been made to appear new, right in time to push through Hate Crimes legislation. There are no coincidences.
The Salon article includes the following:
Were they paid to rehash a three year old story? Why now? The Nation Institute is headed by Hamilton Fish V.
From the Wikipedia bio of Hamilton Fish I:
Probably all just a vast coincidence.
In my understanding of basic democratic principles and structures, it’s not only fair but necessary to distinguish between the standards we hold public servants to (because we give them special powers) and the liberty of the citizen. Public servants take oaths that (in theory, anyway) discipline their behaviour in their public roles; citizens don’t have to do that, and shouldn’t have to. A citizen’s loyalty is voluntary; a soldier’s or the president’s is not.
So why would it be wrong to impose limits on a public servant’s First Amendment rights in his exercise of his public duties? Doesn’t that happen in many ways already? Precisely to protect everyone else’s First Amendment rights?
The problem is in interpreting what a tattoo means and using it to exclude people from applying for a job.
Does a tattoo count as ongoing speech? Maybe, maybe not (it’s not exactly easy to stop saying whatever your tattoo says). So is it fair to exclude someone from service based on what he “said” on his bicep two years ago?
I think the solutions often come from the “problems” these types of laws create. We need to think of laws in regard to process instead of a black and white “control”. jmho
When I first enlisted in ‘85, large tatoos were verboten and individuals would not be allowed to serve if they had ‘em…!
puppy!
Heh, but I’m no spring chicken…! 8-P
It’s insane that they are filling their recruiting goals with white supremacists, criminals, gang members, etc., but Teh GAY, OH NOES! PBS’s Independent Lens had a great show last night re: DADT called “Ask Not.” Just breaks your heart.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/asknot/
They had to lower the bar since it’s wartime… Ironically tho, the sour economy is an integral driver now…!
No irony to it. The reason they knew they wouldn’t have to implement a draft three years ago to fill the ranks of the military is that they knew they’d be able to count on the then-pending crash of the economy to drive the desperate into the waiting arms of the military – as their last resort (to put food on their families).
In an interview with Chris Matthews, John McCain was pressed to explain just where another 100,000 troops are supposed to come from for Iraq. Witness McCain telegraphing the future on Hardball in 2006:
Project/Predict much, John?
Easy, that’s how I got in!
It’s kind of hard when the gov’t itself is engaging in the very behavior it seeks to control. (in regard to gays in the military).
And here’s one more thought about hate crime legislation.
Are they going to prosecute the Mormon DOJ lawyer who wrote the brief comparing gays with incest?
Check this out, from the link at my #17 re: Judges:
I have some of the the doubts that bmaz has. Crimes are crimes, and hate crimes by definition criminalize motivation in addition to the criminal act. Hate crimes are not separate offences, but rather traditional ones motivated by the offender’s bias toward an identifiable group. In a way, similar to terrorism, in that the purpose of the crime, whether vandalism of synogogues or gay-bashing, goes beyond the effect on the individual victim and creates fear and damage in a larger, often despised group. How do you address the effect on the larger group without some kind of hate crime sanction? One way could be making it an aggravating factor in sentencing if a hate element is found.
Laws do have a tendency to create consequences and consequences teach us pack animals about what is acceptable and what is not. I have mixed feelings about this kind of legislation. I think of domestic violence…assault is already illegal, but I believe that domestic violence legislation is finally starting to make it clear that there are legal consequences for beating your wife and kids. Same with child abuse. Why don’t we just use the same laws for assault. Same reason.
We are blind to white privilege and we are often invalidating of the real consequences that this kind of abuse causes for those who are non white and non male. Any time we can give consequences for abuses of power and control, there is some advantage to society…but only if those same rules are applied to at the top. We have seen that right now this is not happening. This seems a far more important problem to me right now. We aren’t following the laws we already have to protect people…from hatred during a war. So why would these laws matter?
For me, as many here are probably sick of hearing the issue of validation is paramount for a healthy society. How do we validate the very real consequences of hate crimes. How do we validate the ripple effect of fear and the way it paralyzes people? The way it literally keeps people down? It is different than an assault against one person for no reason because it says to a whole group of people…”watch out, you may be next”. It is an assault on the whole group to some degree. It has a serious affect on the whole group…on that little black boy who doesn’t see a random killing but sees that they are after him and that the gov’t doesn’t care.
At the same time…it’s hard to imagine that the forces of racial hatred can be deterred by this kind of legislation…I thought the same of about domestic violence, and I have to say, though it has taken a very long time, few people would cajole and encourage hitting a partner or spouse today. We all know better and perhaps this was speeded up in part do to the legal consequences. Does it stop domestic violence? No, we are a long way from that. However, it HAS empowered women and it did validate some very real obstacles for many people to protect themselves…but most of all it validated the problem. I would argue that the laws forced programs and these programs have made the difference.
mixed feelings. I would like freedom of speech, but I do think that there is a line between speaking your mind, and saying what you need to say, verses hatred and power and control. I think we still have a lot to learn about this dynamic in society.
As to politics behind all this…when it’s put in the big picture up against things like right to a trial, and Geneva conventions…it seems like the wrong priority at the wrong time.
One of the things that happens with hate crime legislation is that it makes Hate Crimes a Federal violation. This enables USDOJ to become involved either assisting local or state efforts or replacing it.
Hate speech legislation would make any speech deemed forbidden by the Federal Thought Minders illegal under Federal Law. State and local laws would be irrelevant.
Picture Nazi Germany.
The Ghost Of Prescott Bush is alive and well – and the Nazi agenda is still being pressed here today, albeit under a new disguise – with a whole new race of people to hate.
Want to make a municipal peace officer laugh?
Speak these words: “We’re from the FBI and we’re here to help.”
the Hate Crimes legislation is being offered up as an appeasement to the gays for the ugly DOMA filing – a simple shiny object… oh, and it looks like some crap federal benefits for the gays is also being tossed out there…
Holder’s DOJ can kiss my ass.
I guess bloggers have to have something to write about – now it’s get on Eric Holder for wanting to be tougher on hate crimes?
you know what Roseann Roseanna Danna said?
The whole ugly scheme is pretty much spelled out here.
” On July 2, 2008 Barack Obama in Colorado said, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.” Obama’s attorney-general Eric Holder on NBC’s This Week (May 2, 1999) said: “[The Second Amendment] talks about bearing arms in a well-regulated militia. And I don’t think anywhere it talks about an individual.” Since Holder doesn’t believe you as an individual have a right to bear arms, can you envision Obama’s civilian national security force knocking on your door and asking you to turn over any weapons you may have? What would you do?”
Haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this one is redundant. The real problems with hate crimes is that they limit political speech.
Hate crimes or hate crime laws?
You got it. Sorry about the mistake. I was trying to listen to Flynnt Leverett while typing, and sadly, did neither well.
I entirely agree with bmaz on this one.
All indications are that Tiller and von Brumm will face First Degree Murder charges. I see no need for Federal intervention.
And, if Justice cannot make effective use of the considerable arsenal of authorization (Existing Hate Crimes legislation and The US Patriot Act) they need to hire some brighter folks.
I see this as a politically based shiny object with possible detrimental long-term side-effects.
Essentially, there is pleny of work to do and plenty of current law to enforce.
When it comes to treating mental illness as a result of combat, there is without a doubt a certain self selection issue with regard to mental health outcomes later. Some folks who are drawn to the military are drawn for less than “healthy” reasons. These same folks can end up pretty messed up later.
Mental issues can definitely occur with people of conscious. Unfortunately war can provide a sanctuary for some.
42
Yeah, and there’s a terrible irony there. People are being discharged not for being gay, but talking about it. But at the same time the military is gladly overlooking the ”speech” of white supremacists.
Hate crime is duckspeak for thought crime. It’s not about physical assault, but what one thinks. It’s the equivalent to the Orwellian newspeak term crimethink, rendering two disparate concepts — one concrete, the other abstract — inseparable.
In any event, I doubt very much Holder is calling the shots.
From Third World Traveler: “…it’s clear that the [government] regards the space between your ears as one of its most important battlefields.”
Say for example a group of guys are out to kick a faggot’s butt one night. The faggot in question is me, and I get assaulted. During the assault I’m told that their intention was to kick my butt becuase I’m gay while applying the force to demonstrate it, and I sustained some considerable injury. This did happen btw.
If the concern is about criminalizing intent, I have to say I all for it since I have been the victim of the intent.
Also, from some of the research I’ve done about the Mormons and their reasoning for fighting hate crimes, specifically against gays and lesbians, is they were concerned that by laws like this would lead to legal recognition of gays and lesbians, including marriage. To me, someone who is not lawyer, this tells me that there is merit in this type of legislation to establish my legal right to live my life as who I am. Not mention the additional penalties for the people like the group of guys who bashed me.
Mormons, like Jews, blacks and other minorities have long been victims of hate crimes. That’s one reason they were driven to Utah; mythic origins aside, at the time, no one else would live there. That history would be one reason for their support of this legislation.
Then, too, having done “god’s work” in adopting Prop 8 in California, they could hardly be expected to leave the legislative field to others with good intentions so that the LGBT community is recognized and protected by federal legislation. From their perspective, that would be undoing god’s work.
This legislation at this time is a political tool. It appears to be intentionally divisive and, therefore, distracting of weightier things. It’s the sort of thing I would expect from Karl Rove. Not because people don’t love their neighbors, but because they can’t agree on who to hate.
Good Morning BMAZ, Wheelers, and Firedogs –
Supremacists in the Military –
Neiwert (natch!) writing in July 07:
Neiwert 7/07
linked via 12/08 Post
I have a problem with “hate crime” laws. We already have laws for assault and battery, murder, intimidation etc. The same conduct, and level of conduct, should not have different laws and heightened penalties because it is targeted to a minority or other protected group.
nice to see a front-pager asserting the same argument that had me standing alone against all comers on a thread at FDL about a year ago.
P.S. – and I still agree with the premise that groups are not well served in seeking equal protection by asking for special treatment.
I agree completely. It is really contra to a lot of what we theoretically stand for, but the implications to equal protection just kill me.
mornin’
I understand and appreciate what you and bmaz are saying –
but what about Millineryman @ 49 ?? how is it “special treatment” when the only reason for the assault was teh gay ? obviously, IANAL, but is there ever any ethical room for “special circumstances” ?
but what about Millineryman @ 49 ?? how is it “special treatment” when the only reason for the assault was teh gay ? obviously, IANAL, but is there ever any ethical room for “special circumstances” ?
sorry I was no longer here for your question.
So say some guy blasts me under the mistaken assumption that I’m gay. (which wouldn’t happen easily – click on my “f”) but say that it happens.
What the fuck do I care what his emotional ‘justification’ is?
I don’t; and neither should any court of law. A battery is a battery. Intimidation (a felony) is Intimidation. Those laws are in place and work quite nicely.
I am maybe open to a discussion as to whether “hate” motivations might properly be considered as an aggravator at sentencing, but I think I’m probably against that as well.
Do we really need, after the reign of GWB, more thought crimes?
I truly do not mean to seem insensitive, especially to MM, but there is plenty of stuff already on the books to take care of any situation that I can imagine.
Anyway – sorry to come in so late.
Your pal,……
you are indeed my pal
so appreciate you responding. again, IANAL. but I also don’t want you or bmaz to think I am being led around my by heart or my passions. as to thought crimes, would like to think I could be like that young man from ACLU (jewish, descendant of holocaust survivors) who defended the idjit nazi’s right to speak in Skokie. messy stuff this democracy biz.
but I do think there is a place for hate crimes, clearly I lack the knowledge/vocabulary to express it
thank you again for responding. and thank you bmaz for a thoughtful post
I fully understand the feeling, emotion and intent behind hate crimes, and I too share all of that. As a lawyer though, I have very serious problems with them for the equal protection issues I have described. Above and beyond that though, and almost as troubling, is the uneven and suspect manner in which such provisions are applied in practice; specifically they are used as a selective bludgeon in some applications, but left off the table against others that are just as applicable if not more so. They become nothing more than an arbitrary and capricious tool in the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement. The general citizenry feels all warm and fuzzy over things like this, but has either no idea, or a false idea, as to how such provisions really play out in the trenches of the criminal justice system. It is not pretty or fair.
Thank you one and all for a great discussion.
So do you have any federal laws that can be used when someone with access to a wide audience foments hatred towards a particular group?
Whoa, Im a little shocked not to see a little more in defense of hate crime leg around here. For one thing, Dave Neiwert, who usually gets a fair reading around here, has written quite extensively in support of federal hate crimes legislation. You can read about it over at Orcinus.
But more fundamentally, Im surprised not to see anyone familiar with the basics of criminal law chime in about the ubiquitousness of sliding scale crimes that provide for more or different sanctions depending on the mental state of the actor. Think about it. Killing another human being can be done with many different mental states, so that the penalties range fully from execution to no penalty at all, with the only differences being the mental state. So the criminal law at its foundation recognizes that similar acts committed with different kinds of intent should be treated differently.
With that, it is easy to see why hate crimes legislation could be a perfectly sensible measure to deal with certain kinds of crimes that are based on the prejudicial bias of the actor and which increasingly pose a threat of public safety. Especially when there is a spike in violent crimes based on hatred for a particular race, religion, gender or sexual orientation – and there could be other categories. The law should not disarm itself in the face of systemic bias-based violent lawlessness, and fine, you can make the argument that there is no deterrent for bias murders, but murder is not the only crime perpetrated by racial or other types of haters.
And the free speech issue is so obviously a red herring as to be laughable. We’re talking about acts accompanied by a specific intent. Yates and Brandenburg are obviously still good law. Penalizing certain types of mental states in the context of criminal acts does not implicate the First Amendment at all.
Rubbish. There is a huge difference between distinction based on mental state and that which then throws in artificial classes of humans, thus making some more valuable than others.
“There is a huge difference between distinction based on mental state and that which then throws in artificial classes of humans, thus making some more valuable than others.”
Hmmm… I hope to see this objection brought up when health care reform fails to cover all Americans.
That’s exactly what my wingnut office mate said in the 90’s– it makes black people more valuable than whites.
I don’t see it that way– if a black person calls a white person a honkey and then kills him, isn’t that also a hate crime? If a gay person calls someone a “stinkin’ hetero” and kills him isn’t that also a hate crime? How does this make some groups more valuable than others?
If we are all the same as you suggest, then what is the necessity of laws intimating we are not? And yes, if you go read most all sets of hate crime legislation there are subtle, and often not so subtle, cues that it does not prophylactically go both ways as you suggest.
Hate crime laws do not intimate that we are not equal. They intimate that not all crimes are equal.
I’m not so sure about your assertion that “most all sets of hate crime legislation” have those cues, but I think that would be a defect in those particular laws, not an indictment of hate crime laws in general.
That is simply false. Hate crimes are premised on one victim of the same exact conduct being entitled to different protection under the law than another. It really is that simple. And wrong.
I guess that’s your answer to my question above: “if a black person calls a white person a honkey and then kills him, isn’t that also a hate crime?” I think it should be a hate crime. If it’s not then that’s a problem with the particular hate crime law, not hate crime laws in general.
And I just think it should be a crime period. Without differentiation between colors of people, their religion or sexual preference. Call me crazy, but I think we ought to all be equal under the law. I respect your right to differ.
Hate crimes are perceived to involve greater harm to society than the same criminal conduct conducted without the “hate”. They earn, therefore, longer terms of imprisonment. Politically, that makes the Dems appear to be all law ‘n order Gooper types. It’s also good for Californian and other privatized prison companies, though that crowd ordinarily donates to Republicans.
But really, if laws already on the books make the behavior criminal and provide lengthy terms of imprisonment, what’s the point? Are we worried that Texas or Southern justice will let the most egregious criminals off the hook or give them light sentences? Given the history of those state justice systems, Holder should be more worried about prosecutors going after the wrong defendants and about differential, lengthier sentences for blacks and Hispanics.
This is fishing for mackerel when there are sturgeon aplenty.
As you point out, resorting to hate crime legislation is a claim that the existing justice system is inadequate. Coming from the feds, it’s also a claim that the federal system is more capable of responding to the behavior than individual state systems. It’s usually targeted at a group of states, often the Southern tier (for its history of ignoring the civil rights of minorities and immunizing whites when their crimes are against blacks), though it’s styled as an indictment of all state systems.
Given the Bush regime’s history, and the special way he abused the DoJ in order to punish his political opponents and to protect his own criminal conduct, making more state crimes a federal case would seem a poor priority. Holder should be putting his own house in order before he criticizes the disorderly state of his neighbor’s.
bmaz, the laws don’t “throw in artificial classes of humans, thus making some more valuable than others”.
They in fact rely on factors that are universal across all classes of humans. The biases raised under these statutes include race; ethnicity; religious belief; sexual orientation. Every human has these traits.
So yes, if a gang of gay men go out and start bashing straight people and selecting them for being straight, they too could be arrested for a hate crime. Just as there are about 800 black-on-white hate crimes prosecuted annually.
You also state:
So, is a swastika painted on a synagogue wall the “exact same conduct” as a grafitti artist spraying his name on a wall? Is hunting down gays and bashing them the “exact same conduct” as getting in a bar fight?
Or do you just want the law to continue to render the terroristic motivations of these kinds of crimes invisible?
Yes, actually, I do wish the law to be blind to the distinctions you reference. And you are quite correct that all humans possess certain sets of traits, and I do not believe there should be discrimination in criminal law and punishment based upon them. Yours are moral arguments, not legal ones appropriate for the imposition of criminal prosecution and penalization involving withdrawal of liberty and life.
Is that a statement that existing state criminal laws are inadequate to the task, including whether a judge can take into account motivation and the defendant’s awareness of wrongdoing (or the lack of it) when sentencing? If the law already criminalizes the conduct, is it an attempt to have the law criminalize the underlying motivation as a separate crime? I think the legislatures response should be different depending on the answers.
Concentrating on crafting & passing new laws seems to be a good way to avoid enforcing the ones already on the books. I don’t know how well the DOJ has been doing on hate crimes lately, but they didn’t seem to think the Voting Rights Act was worth enforcing (unless it was blacks who were “intimidating” whites) & they didn’t bother enforcing laws specifically & generally written to protect abortion-services providers.
If Eric Holder wants another fancy presidential pen, he should just ask Obama for one rather than waiting till the President hands him one of those pens he uses to sign some Holder-generated law to clutter up the file drawers.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
When I first moved to SD a friend told me you are in SD now turn your watch back 20 years. At first I thought that was harsh but soon came to think 40 years would be more appropriate. Stopping the racism and hatred has to be job 1.
It is most certainly not demogoguery. Honestly, I hate it that this, of all the right wing memes, is the one that has infected the left so absolutely. Especially since it only takes a second to debunk.
Think for half a second folks: intent is always – ALWAYS a factor, not just in sentencing, but in what crime a criminal is charged with. You accidentally kill somebody, its reckless homicide. You kill somebody in a fit of passion, its manslaughter. You premeditate, its murder. The act could be exactly the same at the time, with exactly the same method, but they are different crimes, charged differently – and NOBODY questions this paradigm, even though the victim is just as dead. When somebody is targeted specifically vs being targeted randomly, we charge them with different crimes – because they ARE different crimes.
It is most certainly NOT the same crime when somebody robs somebody and kills them in a random act of violence as opposed to a hate crime. When a person is targeted because they represent a a group – when someone is beaten to death by an assaulter screaming “Faggot” or “Nigger” – it is a different crime. Period.
And one of the big ways its different is that its a crime against a whole subset of society. That person isn’t targeted for something specific to them – they aren’t targeted because the attacker doesn’t like them personally – they are targeted because the attacker hates “faggots” or “niggers” or “dykes” or whoever.
It is a terroristic assault on an entire class of people, by way of the nearest convenient representative of that class of people.
Different crime. Different charge. Different punishment. Obviously.
So lets ask ourselves – why do so many liberals dig in on this matter so much, and so uncharacteristically?
cuz liberals are a full of shit as anyone esle?
you rang?
*g*
Just seein if anyone was awake!
That is pure bunk; see my response to a similar comment @59. Go off now and read the intent of the drafters of the equal protection clause as it interrelates with the framers intent in the due process provisions of the original document. Then get back to me.. Or not.
I’ll “get back” to you right now: you’re in the wrong.
Yeah, that is very persuasive; thanks for all the facts, details and sound argument you put into your four word silly conclusory statement. Nice job!
You know what they say about opinions, dude.
What – you think you have “facts” behind your contrary views? You think your personally convenient interpretations of what the founders wanted count as “facts?”
Sorry. This is an issue of simple morality and where you choose to stand. I choose to stand someplace different than you, and my reasoning is solid. You don’t like it, fine – but back off the typically blogger silliness of confusing their personal viewpoint with history or science.
I offered my reasoning. You are free to concur or not. That’s really as far as it goes. Sorry if that’s just not enough for you, but the search for some sort of demonstrable proof as to why my morality is “wrong” is a waste of your time, and a game that’s a waste of mine to play with you.
It’s your blog, though – last word is all yours. Go ahead, insult me a little more. That’ll show me.
Feeding the trolls, again?
In fairness, I do not consider them (shredder and odum) trolls on this topic. It is a difficult and emotional subject, and it is personal to many people. In fact, I may have been overly severe to them, but am not very happy with being equated to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Steve King and Virginia Foxx. That is out of line and ridiculous. It is a valuable discussion, and one that should be had. For my beliefs, I have still not seen anything that overcomes my problems with hate crimes on equal protection grounds, and that is before you even get to any of the other infirmities.
And I quite agree with your @ 88
bmaz, I think your criticism of hate crimes legislation is off the mark. The reasoning behind such legislation is not that an assault is more serious when committed against a black person, or a gay person, or any person who is a part of a disfavored minority group. The reasoning is that when you commit an assault against a person because of their group, that is a more serious crime. This means that if a black person committed an assault against a white person because the person were white, that would be a hate crime. It has nothing to do with whether the victim is a racial minority, and everything to do with whether the attack was motivated by racial animus.
This is the same logic that underlies all anti-discrimination legislation. There is no distinction between two different employers, one who refuses to hire people who are black, and one who refuses to hire people who are white. The law protects all people from employment decisions on the basis of race, no matter the race of the employee. The same is true of hate crimes legislation; it does not matter whether the victim is a man or a woman, but rather whether the victim’s gender motivated the attack. In fact, it is exactly this kind of discrimination that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent — discrimination because of the victim’s race (I mention this because you invoked the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution in the comments section).
Similar logic underlies the recent lawsuit filed by David Boies and Ted Olson challenging Prop 8 in federal court. (This is a tangential point, only marginally related to your post, but I think it’s relevant. If you disagree, just ignore it.) When states say that men can’t marry women, that is gender discrimination. Not against either gender specifically, but against both genders. This logic is fairly uncontroversial as a matter of constitutional law. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (holding that state laws prohibiting interracial marriages, miscegenation, violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the reasoning above).
You have made and illustrated my point for me with every one of those scenarios.
Respectfully, I disagree for two reasons. First, in your post, I took your point to be:
“Why is the assault of a black worth more than an assault on on a white? Why is an assault on a gay man any more heinous than an assault on a straight? Why is one group of human beings entitled to more protection under the law than another? Yet, that is exactly what hate crime legislation does.”
But the point of my comment above was to illustrate that hate crimes legislation isn’t based on the idea that “the assault of a black worth more than an assault on on a white” but rather that the motivation behind it – racial animus – is culpable and so further punishable. Incidentally, criminal laws already take purpose into account in many different scenarios. For instance, killings for the purpose of witness intimidation carry higher punishments, as do assaults against police officers.
Second, you invoked the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and their intentions. On a very simplified level, all of the Reconstruction Amendments were aimed at eliminating racial discrimination for the purpose of creating a second class of citizens. (You can argue about whether it was intended to apply to individuals, but I think the source material and pre-enactment statements of the drafters suggests that this was pretty well withing the realm of what they envisioned.)
I have the same exact issue as to police officers quite frankly. As to witness intimidation, that is inapposite as that is a crime against the court, not the individual. The foregoing said, we shall just have to disagree. I understand the thought, and good intentions, behind hate crime legislation perfectly; I just disagree with its propriety for the reasons stated above, both in the post and comments. I respect your differing opinion.
Odum: spot on.
bmaz: You realize you’re in company with Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Steve King and Virginia Foxx?
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2…..-laws.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/s…..egislation
bmaz: please, if you do nothing else, read Dave Neiwert on this.
What I understand is that I am company with the framers of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Don’t be a jackass by trying to equate me with you petty symbols; what pitiful shallowness. And, by the way, I am more than familiar with Dave Niewert; I admire his work, but it is not persuasive Constitutional authority, that is not what he does.
oh fer chrissakes – and OT:
Senator Beauregard berating Eric Holder for not pursuing “The Black Panthers” who trampled other folks’ voting rights – and lauding him for those instances in which Holder has asserted the State Secrets defense.
“Eric Holder can’t seem to do squat for transparency, privacy, accountability or a plethora of other ills carried over from the Bush/Cheney Administration, but he is concerned that we need more hate crime laws…”
Eric Holder, like his boss, is just another fucking monster.
totally OT
I don’t know if I missed any posts on this but I find what is going on in Iran a bright, shiny, object which China and Russia have used while trying to take down the dollar.
Nothing says “get moving on restoring our integrity towards democracy and our economy” like a threat to the dollar.
Is it premature to state that Obama, Holder, and Clarence Thomas are riding along in the same wagon?
Will saying that make me guilty of a hate crime, according to Holder’s proposed legislation?
Hate crimes are a way of intimidating a class of people from exercising their constitutional rights. In that way they are different. Hate crimes are succeeding in extinguishing the class of people who provide certain healthcare services to women. Hate crimes have led a class of people to be afraid to associate with each other in public, and to treat their own sexual identities as shameful. I agree that Holder has other things to do, etc, but the recent uptick in hate crime violence is very disturbing to us all. The problem of regulating a paranoic fringe is very difficult. I empathize with Holder.
bmaz, ok here’s a hypothetical. Legislation is passed stating it is a hate crime to kill for a racist motive, and a higher penalty must be applied than for ordinary murder.
Exam question: please identify and describe the newly protected class of people this legislation creates in violation of the 14th amendment.
Aside: name calling is a sure sign of a weak argument. Dont accuse me of being a shallow jackass without expecting my advocacy for the removal of your posting privileges. You are way, way out of line pallie.
I believe that hate crimes laws generally, though not necessarily the ones currently on the books, are not only justifiable but wise in a capitalist democratic socioeconomic system. Such systems locate their justification in the theory that each individual’s freely made political and economic choices will, when considered in the long run and aggregated together with everyone else’s political & economic choices, produce the best results for the society as a whole. The best & most efficiently produced products supposedly will eventually win out in the marketplace just as the best politicians & political policies supposedly will eventually receive the most votes. Or so the theory goes, anyway.
The problem, of course, is that the theory assumes everyone who hires, buys, and votes is a rational agent, evaluating choices dispassionately & acting to maximize actual self-interest. We are all, instead, a mass of biases & prejudices, & to the extent we buy & vote according to those biases & prejudices, we are fucking up the system, causing it to fail to choose the best possible alternatives. One serious way in which the system fucks up is when a majority, animated by prejudice, agrees to allow some genetic or accidental human quality to weigh heavily when making its socioeconomic choices, as by, say, refusing to do business with, hire, buy from, or elect a gay person, even when the gay person is the rational choice.
A society that depends so heavily for its success on the free choices of rational agents needs to do everything possible to ensure that those agents aren’t motivated strongly by irrational prejudices & thereby fucking up the system.
This is my argument for “diversity” education in public schools. It is my argument for civil rights legislation. And it is also my argument for hate-crimes legislation. It is in the interest of our society as a whole at least to vitiate widespread irrational prejudices against whole groups of people. So it is in our collective interest to punish more strongly crimes that are animated by such invidious prejudice, as these crimes serve to advertise, enact, & foster the prejudice that animates them, & thereby to throw a monkey-wrench in our free-market captitalist & democratic society. Crimes of prejudice are crimes against all of us, attacks upon the root of our socioeconomic system.
All very admirable, so you support undermining the premise of equal protection to accomplish that? Really? What other separations of presumed equality are on your chopping block to accomplish the social engineering you desire?
The “hate” element can be taken into account in assessing intent to commit the crime – making a killing unlawful, or making it murder instead of manslaughter – as well as sentencing. That flexibility is what allows the same law to apply widely varying facts and circumstances.
Whatever the merits of the legislation itself, making “hate crimes” legislation a priority now, as Holder and Schumer have said, when the Senate is virtually paralyzed – Reid is a poor and gutless manager; it sits on a score of nominations, meaning new ones are being delayed; and has performed poorly in responding to other legislation – seems to be pouring ten gallons of want into a five gallon wish machine.
bmaz, I did not “equate” you with those wingnuts. I merely pointed out that they agree with your view on this issue – which appears to be a verifiable fact. I’ll grant you have a better or more genuine reason for your view than they have, but still pointing out the agreement is relevant because it shows that you may be unwittingly advancing a right-wing agenda.
Still waiting for the answer to my hypothetical. Interlocutor99 raises another convincing argument – that the 14th A was designed to prevent the same kind of discrimination hate crime laws are designed to prevent.
The key from an equal protection perspective, as Dave and others have pointed out, is drafting the language of the law so as to be race-neutral, gender-neutral, etc, so that crimes in both directions are covered and no one group is disadvantaged by the language of the law. If that causes one side to blow a gasket, what does that say about that side’s pattern of conduct as opposed to the other side’s? Shouldn’t the criminal law be allowed to address such patterns of conduct, particularly when the pattern is one of violent intimidation often specifically intended to prevent the exercise of basic constitutional rights by a particular disadvantaged group? You can pass laws that help that group but that also would help ANY group in a similar situation, as opposed to passing laws just for that one group, as you correctly suggest would violate equal protection.
Then it strikes me as unpersuasive that you should undermine the 14th in trying to implement it. And that is exactly what this does. As to the remaining argument, if you make it sufficiently neutral so that such a law goes all ways to all people, then it is by definition universal and therefore antithetical to carrying out your purpose of making enhanced penalties for some. You cannot have that both ways.
Ok, think of it this way. Under the Supreme Court’s line of cases, the 14th amendment itself discriminates between various forms of discrimination, labeling some more odious than others. Thus the 14th amendment does not stand in the way of a requirement for separate public bathrooms for men and women. However, it DOES prevent laws requiring separate bathrooms for whites and blacks. Why is that? (Besides “because the Supreme Court said so”)– Because there is no rational reason for separate bathrooms based on race, and there are compelling reasons to reject that, but there ARE rational reasons for separate bathrooms based on gender which outweigh any reasons to reject it. With hate crimes, there is not only a rational reason for enhanced penalties but a compelling reason, given trends of racial and ethnic violence, which are patterns of conduct the criminal law is appropriate to address.
And it’s not “enhanced penalties for some” – rather, it is “enhanced penalties for all” who commit crimes with the requisite intent – just like other crimes such as murder involving a specific intent.
So what is the identity and description of the newly protected class of persons created by hate crimes legislation, again? I missed your response to that.
First off, trying to slip the term “rational basis” into this discussion is somewhat deceptive, as that stands for a very discreet test under the equal protection clause. It is the lowest standard of inquiry and review for these types of issues and is the inappropriate standard for this discussion, at least in my view. The provisions you have put forth are appropriate for what is known as strict scrutiny in that it is contemplated to single out certain races, classes etc of people for unequal treatment under the criminal law. Quite frankly, I do not feel this forum, and the present framing you have set up is conducive to a detailed discussion of this analysis. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that hate crime provisions are the least restrictive means of accomplishing the action desired. I believe that enforcement of the general law equally is the answer to that.
Thanks–an excellent point.
My question is not why is a murder of a minority worse than that of anyone else. I ask, why should minorities NEED special protection? Why tolerate a system of ordinary laws that, in the absence of special incentives, can’t give everyone as much protection as they do me?
We once had a system that distinguished between murders and condoned lynchings. But creating a new, separate but equal class of crime to cover the latter is NOT a solution. It was at best an evasion. Murder is murder.
“We once had a system that distinguished between murders and condoned lynchings. But creating a new, separate but equal class of crime to cover the latter is NOT a solution. It was at best an evasion. Murder is murder.”
We still have a system that condones Racism in the application of Justice.
Just look at the racial identity of those found innocent, and released from Death Row in recent years as a result of the work of the Innocence Project, which relies on Student Journalist investigators, and the application of recent genetic science via DNA analysis. The “Innocent” are largely racial minorities, and the prosecutors, Judges and Juries that put them on Death Row were largely white, with the prosecutors and Judges also elected from the Professional Lawyer class. It is a little difficult to do a classic lynching these days, in the sense that you organize it like a sunday school picnic, invite everyone, and offer up human sacrifice in public — but that doesn’t mean the racial driver has been dealt with. Not at all.
In a perfect world, where equality before the law prevailed, one would not need to accomodate crimes driven by hate against particular classes of persons, for those classes would have long since been eliminated and the boundaries erased. But this ain’t no perfect world!!! The problems are just as much about the specifics of the law as they are with the largely voter selected legal administrative systems at the state level, and at the Federal Level, the limitation of resources, and the politics of prosecutorial decisions, and the politics of Judicial Appointments.
Of course those intrepid student journalists and law clinics, professors and students also have Barry Scheck and Pete Neufeld behind them. By the way, today is the 15th anniversary of the White Bronco Slow Speed chase involving Barry’s most famous client.
“Of course those intrepid student journalists and law clinics, professors and students also have Barry Scheck and Pete Neufeld behind them. By the way, today is the 15th anniversary of the White Bronco Slow Speed chase involving Barry’s most famous client.”
And Scheck and Neufeld won’t be doing all that much for a time, as much of the Innocence Project was supported by Foundation Grants on the part of a foundation that parked all its capital with Bernie Madoff. They have apparently had to lay off about 80% of their employees, and may have to close down.
You know, if it isn’t corruption of the actual administration and execution of the law, it is corruption in the financial sector that screws up things like the Innocence Project. Too bad they can’t find another OJ type client who could provide years of work at high cost that might be used to support such a project.
“And Scheck and Neufeld won’t be doing all that much for a time, as much of the Innocence Project was supported by Foundation Grants on the part of a foundation that parked all its capital with Bernie Madoff. They have apparently had to lay off about 80% of their employees, and may have to close down.”
Oh, no!
b – the test to be applied depends on whether or not the basis of the discrimination creates a “suspect class.” Race is a suspect class, obviously. Race-neutral legislation (to answer the q. I posed earlier) creates a class of people who commit crimes with the intent of intimidating a group of which the victim is a member. Is that class really so suspect that strict scrutiny must be applied to protect that class against discrimination? That we dont want to discriminate against criminals who have the intent of intimidating a group unless there is a compelling reason to do so? Especially when there is a trend of criminal violence by people in that class? That idea absolutely turns equal protection on its head. Criminal law creates classes of criminals according to their intent and distinguishes between them all the time. This is no different. It applies across the board. Given that this class is not suspect, a rational basis test is appropriate.
rob – the Hate Crimes legislation proposal does not give minorities special protection; it gives victims of hate crimes special protection. The only reason minorities would receive special protection would be if their group is being targeted. The law is meant to penalize the targeting of ANY group for violent intimidation. To complain that this gives minorities special protection misses the point that they need special protection ONLY because they are being targeted with violence AS A GROUP – but it could be ANY group. The law would equally protect Christians as Jews; whites as blacks; etc. It is needed beyond ordinary criminal statutes because of the chilling effect Hate Crimes have on the abilities of members of victimized groups to exercise THEIR constitutional rights.
People are missing the difference between a discriminatory law and a law that goes after violent discrimination. When you crack down on discrimination, you are discriminating. The key is to have a permissible basis of discrimination under the 14th A.
One thing I agree with you about, bmaz – this is probably not the most important priority for Holder right now, and if he is doing this just to appease progressives while avoiding the more difficult tasks of reversing Bush administration policies, then demagoguing is exactly the right word.
That is the point; you are effectively, even if not directly, creating suspect classes for different treatment under the law. If you make it universal/equal as you suggest, there will be no difference in how individuals are treated and you have frustrated you initial purpose, which was to create a different framework for certain actors/victims.
But, again, these are long and pretty ingrained things for me, I started fighting this both with proponents of the legislation in my jurisdiction, and with prosecutors and courts in actual cases. I will also fully admit that I am fairly jaded from having seen up close how prosecutors use the provisions, and that is mostly as a bludgeon for bargaining power. And also, I fully understand that most appellate law, including at SCOTUS is against my position (although there are distinguishable points because they often have often looked at this from the aspect of sentencing discretion as opposed to root constitutionality).
Hate crimes are directed at a group as much as an individual and are intended to sow fear and as such, concern all of society. The need for additional legislation, especially at the federal level, is because too often, local law enforcement, including the courts, are not always as interested in pursuing justice as they should. Hate crime legislation then allows the federal government to step in if necessary to see that action is taken if local enforcement does not occur.
As an earlier poster noted, when domestic violence laws were introduced and it came “out of the closet” people began to realize that it was not okay to hit wives/husbands and children. Even if they didn’t agree, the laws at least made them stop and reconsider. Hate crime laws will hopefully accomplish the same thing.
As far as equal protection, we already have enhancements for certain groups or situations. Gang members – at least in California – receive additional time.
Note to bmaz: Start reading David Neiwert. Start here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2…..rance.html
I am more than familiar with Niewert thank you so much. In fact Dave was here earlier. You do realize that Dave used to be an integral part of FDL don’t you? Jeebus. How about you start reading the Constitution and equal protection law. There, now we’re even.
Yeah, I knew about that. I would say it is criminal, but that is obvious. It is a shame of horrendous proportions. Peter and Barry are not without their own resources though, and I think NACDL will help out some. So the work will go on; but it hurts. Badly. I do not know either of them particularly well, but both are dogged on this subject; they will stick with it.