I don't have mixed feelings about such legislation, I think it is a waste of time and energy. Any crime committed because one person hates something about another is punishable as a crime sans the hate. Such intent should not come with more severe punishment. This insinuates that perpetrators of such crimes are more dangerous, and I'm not sure this is the case. In my opinion, a person that is capable of executing such crimes simply for pleasure is far more reprehensible than one that is capable of targeting a specific group.
Someone didn't like it, and they took me to task....
Congratulations on your avoiding all the arguments presented in this thread advocating for hate crime protections in order to defend a preconceived position that has little to do with core arguments proposing such legislation. Your argument reminds me of the old YEC adage where the advocate proclaims his 'grandpappy weren't no monkey'.
I had a rather lengthy response (his arguments in bold)...
Mr Heath, the only arguments I saw were yours, did you feel slighted that I ignored you? Your arguments don't seriously suggest that such legislation will make much difference.
1) Hate Crime laws provide federal resources to local law enforcement when a hate crime is committed and can't be readily resolved. Consider a group burning Baptist Churches in a certain part of a state. The group terrorized isn't only those members who've churches have been set on fire, but all surrounding Baptist or even evanglical/fundie churches. Most local law enforcement entities lack the resources and skill set to investigate such crimes given the scope of who are both indirect victims and possible future direct victims.
This is bullshit. Consider a group burning ANY number of buildings in an area. The same thing applies, the whole area is terrorized. Why would federal resources not be provided? A crime streak as you suggest will certainly raise interest on a federal level, regardless of the institutions targeted.
2) The fact is that hate crimes are intended to inflict harm well beyond their direct victims. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. It's asymetrical warfare where the criminal(s) conspires (not merely intends) to harm those of a protected group well beyond their direct victims.
Where did you come up with this gem? I don't see how you can make such an assertion. You can't possibly have any evidence for it. You are suggesting that a group of people that target an individual due to race or sexual orientation, do so with the intent of impacting the surrounding community. I find it difficult to imagine such a group with the ability to think beyond the succeeding few hours, let alone any far reaching effects such as you suggest. It may have been the case back when most people were outspoken, for instance, in their belief that black people were inferior, but the difference now is there is no support for such attitudes, spoken or implied, among the general population. If there were, those that conduct such crimes would generally assume community support, and would also assume some level of impunity. Do you really suspect that such crimes are committed assuming such impunity?
3) Given the reality that many geographical areas' members of the legal community reject and fail to execute the Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law and due process for protected groups given their bigotry, a federal hate crimes law obligates the federal government to do what the Constitution already obligates them to do - defend the Constitutional rights of its citizens, even from the tyranny or mistreatment by state and local governments. Given the FBI can provide empirical evidence such injustice occurs, by both perps and the justice system, it's consistent with our founding ideals for federal resources to insure a judicious amount of energy is used to investigate, prosecute, and sentence such crimes.
Please enlighten us as to exactly how, if existing laws fail to encourage members of the legal community to execute the Constitutional principle of equal protection, additional legislation would change anything. You said it yourself, the Constitution already obligates them to defend the rights of the citizens. Another law saying, basically, "we really mean it" will rid us of bigotry?
The point is, further legislation targeting actions that are based on social shortcomings of the perpetrators is akin to legislating morality. Historically speaking, it doesn't work. Existing legislation already deals with the actions. Insisting on additional punishment if, in someone's opinion, a criminal acted with hateful intent, is suggesting that laws can change a person's attitude's towards others. This has no basis in reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment