12 Comments

Apparently, hate crime laws are even sillier than I realized, given that the article says New York’s hate crime law includes _age_ as a protected category.

Are they seriously going to charge a purse snatcher with a hate crime if he yells “I hate little old ladies!” right after grabbing an octogenarian’s handbag?

I agree that the purpose of hate laws is noble, but in practice it smacks too much of “thought police.”

If I commit a cold-blooded murder, does it really matter if I did it out of “hate” or because I’m a psychopath? You can put me on record as opposing hate crime laws.

The laws are all dubbed ‘Hate Crime’ related, which implies that the crime is hate. Yet the statutes are defined in terms of the perception of the action by the alleged victim. There really is no attempt to determine whether hate was involved.
In the course of a 1st amendment protected conversation I might choose to insult my opponent. My choice of words might have nothing to do with hate, but be merely practical; I’m going to use words that bite. If my opponent is an asian, using the N word would likely draw only a quizical stare, whereas referencing ‘chink’ and laundry might be considered more effective. It is not so much about hate as it is using speach designed to evoke the desired effect. And in the end, speach should be protected (though as a society we can still effect censure and disapproval).

Hey, it only took him, what, 20ish years to figure that out? Some of us came to that conclusion the very first moment we heard of the concept. Of course, most of those people were EEVVVIIIILLL kkkonservativs, so they don’t count.

For “minor” crimes, a hate crimes designation is defensible. If I am a Kentucky fan and you are an Indiana fan, and I vandalize your home with “Go ‘Cats”, that’s not in the same league as vandalizing your house with “KKK”.

I have a question, with interracial rape, is it often that the offender makes reference to the victim’s race? I have to imagine that it happens somewhat frequently . . . . why aren’t those crimes ever prosecuted as hate crimes?

“If their overarching purpose is to affirm the equality of all people, then the law should punish all assaults the same, regardless of the race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status of the victim. The “protected class” should be human beings.”

Exactly. Thank you for saying it.

1. The editorialist does not encourage me with his sudden note of the wrongness of hate crimes laws coming about because of a black-on-white assault. Where was he when the hate crimes were all charged against whites? Probably clucking that those racist whites deserve what they get.

2. I’m highly sympathetic to the idea that hate crime laws punish thought more than action, and SELECTIVE thought, at that. But there is a fundamental notion in the criminal law that does allow for punishment of thought – the “mens rea.” If you mean to steal, you’re guilty. If you absentmindedly walked off with something, you’re not. So in a sense, we DO seek to punish “evil thought” or evil intention, but usually for very time-honored evil intentions. Hate crimes are more a product of the political climate of today, and were designed to punish whites, which is problematic, even if they are sometimes employed against other groups.

3. Our society’s refusal to acknowledge that there are inherent differences and frictions between racial groups, however, will mean that the rickety apparatus of “hate crime” laws, along with civil rights, affirmative action, etc., will not serve to make life better. Only more confounding, unfair and violent.

Let’s be brutally honest.

The purpose of hate crimes is to ensure that the prison population is more representative of a cross-section of America.

The purpose of making prison populations more representative of a cross-section of America is to convince minorities that The Man is not out to get them.

That this is a completely hare-brained line of thinking is besides the point.

“For another thing, it is possible that such laws could end up punishing blacks who commit violence against whites — which is a far cry from the historical experience that inspired hate-crime statutes.”

This is cited as a BAD thing – that is, to apply the law equally to everyone, regardless of race. Yowser! David Wilson (in point #1) apparently hit the nail more squarely than I had realized.

And this is the case AGAINST hate crimes? Oy.

“Hate crimes” are typically politically-correct in their subjective, victim-based orientation and accordingly unleash bad law and a perception of more ‘hate crime’ than actually exists (in the true sense).

Wait and watch how the gay and lesbian groups balk when transgendered people are included in the new draft. These advocacy groups have no interest in fairness only their own pet causes. The rest of us might as well be dog crap on the sidewalk as far as the special interests are concerned.

“The rest of us might as well be dog crap on the sidewalk as far as the special interests are concerned.”

More like the sidewalk itself. They avoid walking on dog crap – they walk on sidewalks to get where they want to go.