Limbaugh on hate crimes bill: Everybody but "blacks and homosexuals" "can get to the back of the bus"
July 02, 2009 3:18 pm ET
From the July 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: "Context is everything": Why you should (still) never trust Andrew Breitbart
Media Matters: The right-wing rage machine unloads a frenzy of race-baiting
Media Matters: The greatest science "scandal" "in the history of man" predictably falls apart
Sinking into his own cesspool....
Do you realize how stupid it sounds to hear a white man cry "victim"?
Of course not, that is why you continue to do so...
I simply cannot believe that he is as dumb as he speaks. I think the man is simply amoral and that he will say anything to get that obscene paycheck. The radio stations that continue to broadcast these inflammatory diatribes ought to be boycotted.
Perhaps now is the appointed hour. For both the stations and Rush, whom Al Franken correctly named, it is time to say, "At last, do you have no shame?"
And no one knows how many of that 1.6% are listening to his show waiting for him to run off the rails and be carried away by the men with the butterfly nets.
It's coming. And soon.
I'm waiting to hear from some dittohead on here to make the claim that "all crime is hate crime..." or some other stupid nugget of insane dumbness.
I just hope Lush understands that it's even more difficult for those of us who don't have the opportunities that he's had to be successful. Many of us couldn't possibly do his job. Not for a lack of talent or ability, but because we have a conscience.
p.s. i'm as anti ditto head as they come.
Therefore, White Christian Bigots don't really need Hate Crimes protection.
On the other hand, if the White Christian Bigot Preacher was enraged by a Gay Pride parade and hit one of them with a 2x4, there is a good possibility in some jurisdictions that he might get a wink and a nod from local law enforcement.
In that case, the Gay guy would need to turn to Federal Law for satisfaction.
It's not that complicated.... really.
When Gay people and black people start getting away with these types of crimes, then you might have a point.
Do you think there should be different consequences for premeditated murder and killing somebody in self-defense?
Self defense has nothing to do with a "hate crime".
As for premeditation, consider this:
A neo-Nazi kills a black man in a premeditated murder.
A black gang member goes out and kills a neo-Nazi in revenge, also premeditated.
Under "hate crime" legislation, who would theoretically get the harsher sentence?
You obviously have your own answer to that question yet you don't want to share it. If I didn't answer it correctly then why don't you tell me your thinking on the subject?
It's a freaking Yes or No question !!!!
Brother, you're killing me.My face is starting to hurt from laughing. The topic recently came up here (Nerzog I believe) about the oil & water reaction of conservatives to analogies. Something about that black & white thinking.
Take a step back. Forget about the hate crime topic. You're alone on a desert island with my question. Just the gentle lapping of the waves, a tropical wind, and the question.
Now focus. Relax. Breathe deeply.
and think about the question. Is your answer "yes" or "no" ?
Holy sh*t, patience???? This is not hard!
My point is that you understand that the "thoughts" of the perpetrator can be, and should be, considered in the course of justice. What I did was take it outside of the topic of "hate crimes" and had you apply it to another topic. One that you either don't have such an emotional reaction to, or that you haven't been fed a lot of propaganda about.
That way, we can end the discussion. You've pointed out the flaw with your original point. You don't have to take my word for it, just your own.
Glad to help.
Thumbs up to you for missing the argument that somehow a harsher punishment should be justified because a person is hated because of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., in the commission of a crime. Absolutely brilliant - not.
Or did you forget what part of the thread you were on? Do you need a map?
Ignoring that major difference just on the principle of keeping "thought" as a sacred cow isn't a tenable position as far as I can see. Having judgment in the system is much more important.
Exactly. A "thought crime" is piggybacked onto a regular crime.
People can think whatever they like. They can say almost anything they want. When that crosses into harm against someone else, then it's no longer protected.
Would you want the perpetrator charged with a hate crime? How much more a sentence would that person deserve?
Regarding your example, do you think that there's a difference between an act of choice and skin color? It seems to me like if someone's targeted because they're black, there's nothing that person could ever do to avoid that. It's not a choice. Being a neo-Nazi is. This isn't to say that you can kill them at will, but there's a difference between having a right to hate someone and being protected on that basis. Religion can be protected because we have religious freedom. But you can't call a black man a n***** and then expect to sue him when he knocks you out, because what you said was incendiary. The same sort of logic could apply to your scenario. A revenge killing wouldn't spur any action regarding a protected class, because threatening and incendiary behavior is not protected. There would still be prosecution, but any argument of "special protection" would seem very difficult to pursue.
There's actually a right to hate someone? Is that alongside the "right" to a job, a living wage, or perhaps a BMW? Or as Bill Clinton once said, "All Americans deserve protection from hate." You mean, that kind of right? Good grief...
Take a break.
"I think my point was made when you dodged the question. It's hard to have a discussion before everybody understands the topic. Glad to help."
I don't normally direct questions to myself to answer, but since you seem too timid to give your answer, I'll go ahead and tell you my opinion.
As Brab mentioned, it's not compicated. It's not a trick question, it's a very simple, straightforward question.
My answer? Yes. I do believe there should be different punishments for the two situations.
Physically, they're the same, the taking of a human life by another human. The difference is in the circumstances and the motivation. That would be the "thoughts" of the perpetrator.
Are we getting anywhere yet?
Get up to speed. At least bring yourself kicking and screaming into the 20th Century B.C.
Good point. But why would you want to apply that logic in order to make a hate crime law?
If you visualize yourself as part of that scenario, I think the reasoning becomes a little clearer.
Why not apply that to a Mafia hit in a neighborhood as well? Would you call that an act of terrorism? Where do you stop?
On the other hand, if a black man found dead with a burning cross in his front yard and racial slurs spray-painted on the walls, then that essentially becomes an act of terrorism.
Why not apply that to a Mafia hit in a neighborhood as well? Would you call that an act of terrorism? Where do you stop?
I hope I never get in line at the drive-thru behind this guy. "You want fries with that ?" might send him into a philosophical tailspin.
Care to start from square one and develop some argument instead of just dropping a name? How about going back to the laws that were in place before Shepard was killed and what harsher punishment the killers would have received had there actually been hate crime laws on the books in Wyoming?
I know this isn't what happened in Wyoming, but look at the fact that it has happened often and continues to happen in isolated instances. With hate crime legislation, the Federal statute forces prosecution.
It is almost impossible to generate any sympathy for bigots. It may be the reason that arguments against hate crime laws have focused on how they might hurt the rest of us; the "chilling effect" that Brabantio mentions, some slippery slope of deciding what punishment is appropriate, and so on. And while each argument has merit, it can leave the impression that these hate crime laws would be acceptable if we could avoid those side effects.
I would guess that many people find that the harsher sentences are not unjust, if only because there is a sense that the crime is worse because it is motivated by bigotry. So we hate the crime more only because of the idea it represents. And though it may feel right, I think it is wrong for our laws to reflect that same attitude.
A question in all seriousness: Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because available evidence says no.
If, for example, a white person kills a black person, that is not a hate crime. If a white person kills a black person because they are black, that is a hate crime.
Here's the kicker, bozo: Under hate crimes laws, it is not "minority" that is a protected category, it is race. So if a black person kills a white person because they are white - that is a hate crime!
The idea that such protection is only for "minorities" is a big fat steaming pile fed to you by corrupt liars who want to control and direct your natural anger at injustice in ways that will maintain their power and fatten their wallets. Stop being a tool.
A question in all seriousness: Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because available evidence says no.
Well, not according to this group. ;-)
If, for example, a white person kills a black person, that is not a hate crime. If a white person kills a black person because they are black, that is a hate crime.
Under hate crimes laws, it is not "minority" that is a protected category, it is race. So if a black person kills a white person because they are white - that is a hate crime!
So, if a white person kills a black person, they get punished more if the black person is hated at the time of the murder, assault or what have you. And the same holds true if a black person kills/assaults a white person because purely because of hate - that makes so much sense!
And now that hate crimes legislation was expanded to include not only race but sexual orientation, gender identity and physical or mental disability I guess we can just get rid of all those old regular laws on murder, rape, assault and such, right? Otherwise we've just created a whole new class of victims.
If a person is killed in a hate crime, is that person more or less dead than if he was killed by a robber? Will the victim's family take solace in knowing that their loved one wasn't killed because someone hated them? Is a person who kills out of hatred any more dangerous to society than someone who kills for drug money or wanting to steal another's property? You still end up dead, no matter what the perpetrator felt about you at the time. So the only thing that separates a regular murder from a hate-crime murder is the thought (or motive) of the perpetrator at the time of the killing. Nothing else is different. Codifying political correctness - is that the goal here?
Your complaint has been that this isn't "equal protection", but when it's pointed out (again) that the same exact thing would apply to white people if they were a victim of a hate crime, you suggest that it doesn't make sense.
What the hell do you want, exactly?
And the chilling effect on the other people who share the hated trait in the community. You forgot about that part, for some strange reason.
Once again, merely hating someone in the commission of a crime should not be justification for harsher punishment. That doesn't make sense in my view.
What the hell do you want, exactly?
I never said, obviously, that I wanted anything. I posted an opinion about hate crimes legislation in general. It's taken off from there... ;-)
I completely agree. But that is not what we are talking about with hate-crimes legislation. This ties back in to the MOTIVE of committing that crime. If a white man kills a black man who owns a store because he is in the process of robbing him, the motive for the murder is not because the store owner was black. Even if the white guy hates him personally. Even if he hates black people in general.
I understand that. But if the white man kills the black man (or the other way around, for that matter) because he hates the other person based on skin color, sexual orientation, or what ever, do you think that merits more punishment? That is essentially the crux of the argument, no matter how many other rabbit trails you see here. My belief is "no", and I'm the only one on this thread who thinks that way. Even if you don't agree with me at least you've been civil, so thank you very much.
(The above is edited for space.)
Yes, it does make sense - because motive matters. That's why premeditated murder gets punished more harshly than manslaughter and even more to the point, more than "a crime of passion," even though the victim is, as you say elsewhere, no less dead.
Different motives can nonetheless produce the same result. Society has long decided that some motives are worse than others and so deserve harsher punishment. Hatred is one such motive and a crime driven by hatred, which carries implications not just for the victim but for everyone of the same sort as the person who was the target of the crime, is one such motive.
You're in a bar. You slug another patron. He's gay.
1. You know he's gay. You hit him because you got into an argument about who was the greatest left-hander of all time and it got out of hand. Not a hate crime.
2. You hit him in the course of the argument and later find out he's gay. Not a hate crime.
3. You hit him because he's gay. A hate crime.
Are you seriously going to try to claim you can see no differences there? If you can't, I can only ascribe it to willful blindness.
That is true, but by creating a distinction with hate crime laws based on motive, they are bound to punish those people based on speech, typically the only action that could be used to prove motivation based on bigotry. So in your case of assault, a possible misdemeanor offense could be elevated to a felony based solely on what the perpetrator said at the time. In this case punishment is not based on conduct - the assault - but for uttering an epithet. Is that what you support?
I see my suspicion of willful blindness is being confirmed.
As noted by Brabantino, the speech would not be a crime and not be punishable as a crime or used an an aggravating factor. Its only use would be as evidence of motive. And the idea that outside of some case where someone bursts into a building with a gun, shouts "I'm gonna kill you fill-in-the-blanks," and starts shooting, that some isolated "uttered epithet" at the time of the crime would, standing alone and in the absence of supporting evidence, be sufficient to prove a case of bias-driven crime, is simply inane.
As for the rest, am I to take it that if I hit you with my car and was charged with felonious assault but I claimed at trial it was an accident and so should be simple assault, you would oppose the prosecution producing a witness to testify that I said "I'm going to hit hm1342 with my car" because that would make speech responsible for an increased charge?
What you saw was a response to your post.
As noted by Brabantino, the speech would not be a crime and not be punishable as a crime or used an an aggravating factor.
Actually, if you called me a racially charged name in front of witnesses it is very likely you could be charged with a hate crime. And, if that name was heard by others concurrent with your assault example, the punishment could be elevated because of that very same "hate" speech.
As for the rest, am I to take it that if I hit you with my car and was charged with felonious assault but I claimed at trial it was an accident and so should be simple assault, you would oppose the prosecution producing a witness to testify that I said "I'm going to hit hm1342 with my car" because that would make speech responsible for an increased charge?
Let's see. If we know each other and other witnesses state we have had a feud going on for some time, the prosecution may up the ante from simple assault to felonious assault or even attempted murder. Good luck with that one. So you'll have to be more specific in the background.
How many assumptions are you going to add into this scenario? He didn't say anything about a feud. If he were to say he was going to hit you, whether he knew you very well or not, then that would be evidence of a greater crime.
You cannot possibly be serious. Have you not added assumptions during this thread? And have I somehow exceeded some quota known only to you?
But to get back to your assertion, one of the strongest arguments in support of harsher punishment through hate crime laws is that hate crimes do more harm. You have somewhat nibbled around the edges on that one (your repeated references to a "chilling effect"). So hate crimes do tend to generate fear among the members of any targeted group.
But what is not clear (and you have never articulated) is that this concentrated fear caused by some hate crimes is somehow worse than the more widespread fear generated by ordinary crimes. For example (I know, another assumption), would it be more destabilizing socially or terrifying if someone is stabbed because he's gay, or someone is stabbed for their shoes? In the former case, the implication is that gays are a target while in the latter, everyone is a target.
And while you keep talking about the "chilling effect" on the community of the targeted group, you somehow fail to mention that the opposite can happen. A hate crime (or even an ordinary crime) can bring a community or several communities or groups together in a show of solidarity. Ordinary street crime can unnecessarily exacerbate racial hostilities, and the community's response to a single incident can sometimes be linked to the public's perception of that incident. The Rodney King beating is an excellent example.
I'm very serious. The example that was presented to you did not include any of the factors you tried to add. If someone didn't know you at all, and just said "watch me run down that guy", then that speech would elevate the crime. If you have examples of how I've made assumptions in order to dodge your point, please cite them.
Random violence which could possibly indicate a potential serial killer would affect more people, yes. I'm not sure how you think that lessens the impact of hate crimes, and I'm very perplexed as to why this utterly irrelevant concept was supposed to be addressed by me. You could also argue that wiping out a crowd at a McDonald's shouldn't be considered such a big problem because genocide is worse.
I'm really finding it difficult to believe that you're trying to argue that because something can happen that we should discount incidents where it doesnot happen. The concern about the chilling effect would obviously still be valid whether it always occurs or not.
Bzzzt! Attempt to change focus of conversation rejected.
Already asked, already answered: Hate crimes are of a worse type. Crimes driven by hatred are more destructive to the community, more likely to disturb the peace of the community, and generally more traumatic to the victim than ordinary crimes. Because they are worse, they deserve worse punishment.
Or don't you believe in letting the punishment fit the crime?
Wow. I will give you this: You are full of BS, but at least that was original BS.
For their shoes? That's an equivalent case? What, did the attacker hate shoes? Or hate people who wear shoes? Is there some skinhead-like, KKK-like, movement of shoe-haters of which we've previously been unaware?
Oh, wait, no, it's, I know, it's the Imelda Marcos Brigade! That gang of terrorists determined to control every shoe in the country! That's the ticket!
No, no, wait again, that's not right. Someone stabbed for their shoes, hmmm. The attacker must want their shoes. Ah! So in the other case, the attacker must want to get the other person's gay! That's it, they're jealous and they want to have their victim's gay for themselves!
Yeah, right, easy to see, the two cases are exactly alike.
A hate crime ... can bring a community or several communities or groups together in a show of solidarity.
Oh, well, then, hooray for hate crimes! Just like hunger can be a positive motivator.
The Rodney King beating is an excellent example.
Um, huh? Rodney King was a man whose unjustified, brutal beating by police sparked racial disturbances. How is that related to "ordinary street crime?" Since I imagine you're not saying that black men being beaten by police is "ordinary," I can't fathom what connection you're claiming.
So let's see, what's against you in this matter? The facts, the law, logic, history, the Congress, 45 states and DC, and the Supreme Court. I think we can turn the oven off now. You're done.
What I saw was a determined attempt to avoid and befog the facts and the law in order to deny them. The truth is, the facts and the law are both against you here - and refusal to budge in such a case is not logic, it is simple stubbornness. It is willful blindness.
if you called me a racially charged name in front of witnesses it is very likely you could be charged with a hate crime
That is astonishingly ignorant. You are asserting here that the words alone constitute a crime. That is so amazingly wrong that it requires a conscious effort to address the rest of what you wrote seriously and I can do so only by reminding myself that you are likely merely a victim of the lies fed to you by the reactionaries.
if that name was heard by others concurrent with your assault example, the punishment could be elevated because of that very same "hate" speech
Again - how many times does this have to be said before it sinks in? - the speech, whether uttered then or previously, is relevant only as evidence of bias. The idea that an epithet said in the course of a crime, standing alone, without independent evidence of bias, could up a charge to a hate crime Is. Utterly. Ridiculous.
If we know each other and other witnesses state, etc.
Stop trying to drown the question in minutiae for the purpose of running away from it. I'm going to repeat the question: Would you oppose introduction of testimony that I expressed a conscious intent to hit you with my car on the grounds that my speech was being used to increase the charge? We both know why you didn't answer: If you say yes, you come off as deeply silly. If you say no, your argument that it's wrong to use speech as evidence of motive falls apart. Even so, I want you to answer it. And note that it's a yes or no question; it only requires a one-word answer. If you want to expand on the answer after that, fine - but answer it first.
Before you do, you might want to consider that SCOTUS unanimously upheld the constitutionality of hate crimes laws (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). The decision, written by that well-known radical left-wing activist William Rehnquist, noted with approval the state's contention that "bias-inspired conduct" is thought
He added that
And while you're chewing on that, you might consider that in addition to the federal government,
So why, if there are all these horrible things that arise from hate crimes laws, haven't they happened already? Why aren't we seeing people routinely tossed in the clink for a racial (or religious, or ethnic, or whatever) epithet? Why aren't people being charged for crimes based on their "speech?" And I don't mean that as a throw-away question, I want you to answer it.
Finally, you might also consider one other thing: Wisconsin v. Mitchell involved a black man being charged with a hate crime for spurring a mob to attack a white boy. So much for Rush's "everybody else to the back of the bus" nonsense.
Cuz we've got plenty of them around here already.
You're not being attacked. People are trying to help you.
Along those lines, imagine if you were a gay man living in an area with a homophobic sheriff. Doesn't that qualify as unequal protection? Doesn't the measure of the federal government being able to take on any investigation into a crime perpetrated against you give you the same amount of protection that a straight man already has?
Abuse of power or lack of equal protection does not end with the addition of hate crime laws, do they? What about a police officer or a prosecutor who uses those same hate crime laws to hand down harsher punishments on those who have offended them?
I sincerely thank you for having the courage to wade into this by saying you don't support hate crimes legislation either. Hopefully the others won't gather around you incessantly (and fruitlessly) like they have me. I do agree that Rush loves to exaggerate his arguments at times. Thanks again! :-)
Is this a new meaning of the word "help" I'm not aware of? ;-)
Whoever said I was a conservative? Or do you just assume that because I disagree with what MMfA posted?
If someone's targeting people just because they're white, male, straight or Christian, then theoretically that law could apply there too. It just doesn't happen very often, and it's not as if there's a systemic bias that's going to favor the perpetrator of that crime anyway.
From the Fourteenth Amendment:"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Who is being denied anything if hate crimes are recognized? Maybe we should get rid of wheelchair ramps too, since nobody's making any special efforts to accommodate people who can walk. It's just not fair!
If any case has actually been prosecuted for those reasons I would truly appreciate it if you would let everyone else know. I am not personally aware of any such prosecutions but you cannot keep up with everything.
Who is being denied anything if hate crimes are recognized?
That's not my point. Rather, why should there be any harsher sentence because the person killed was of a different skin color, sexual orientation or religious viewpoint? No one thus far (save for nerzog's earlier post) has bothered to defend hate crimes legislation as a necessary thing.
I don't have any idea if that's ever happened or not. It's hypothetical. The assertion that it's not likely only bolsters my argument.
No, it's my point, and I'd like you to address it. If you're going to cite Equal Protection, then you should defend the suggestion that the Constitution says anything to support your argument. I don't think it does, because nobody's being denied anything.
It really seems like the whole idea is to say "if a white man has a right, then a black man should have it too". It doesn't reverse itself to mean "a black man can't be given special protection against bigots because white men have no such protection". Read the actual clause that I provided and tell me how you disagree with that, please.
Actually, no, I wouldn't have to do that. You might prefer it, but that's another matter.
The difference in the dynamics of power would assert that the minority class is not equal to begin with.
And so to "level the playing field" our laws will punish those who kill someone because of skin color or sexual orientation more harshly?
Again, wheelchair ramps. Isn't that a "preference" given to handicapped people over people who can walk, since nobody's doing anything special for them?
And a "preference" for a handicapped person equates how in the commission of a crime?
It really seems like the whole idea is to say "if a white man has a right, then a black man should have it too". It doesn't reverse itself to mean "a black man can't be given special protection against bigots because white men have no such protection".
No, the idea is that we are all equal under the law.
Read the actual clause that I provided and tell me how you disagree with that, please.
I read the clause and gave you another viewpoint on it. Just because you don't like my view doesn't mean I'll change it to suit you.
Then how do you assert that the protection is not equal? Without that, you have no argument. Are you pretending that English is not your first language, and you don't really understand the meaning of the word "have" in this context?
The effect on other people in the community is an additional crime, therefore it carries a harsher punishment. You also need the federal protection option to insure equal protection.
"And a "preference" for a handicapped person equates how in the commission of a crime?"
You're talking about the law. Aren't there laws which mandate such things? Are those laws unconstitutional? Is this point really this difficult for you to grasp?
So if you need something and I don't, then you shouldn't get it because I don't need it. That's how you define "equal", apparently.
What I want is for you to look at the clause and tell me how my interpretation is questionable in any way, or how the reversal I mentioned is somehow implied in the wording. You don't have to change anything, you just have to back it up in some manner. This is how intelligent discussions work.
And that is codified in hate crimes legislation where? Or is this an assumption?
You're talking about the law. Aren't there laws which mandate such things?
Does hate have anything to do with handicap preferences?
So if you need something and I don't, then you shouldn't get it because I don't need it. That's how you define "equal", apparently.
Where do you come up with all these wonderful assumptions?
What I want is for you to look at the clause and tell me how my interpretation is questionable in any way, or how the reversal I mentioned is somehow implied in the wording.
What you want is for me to agree with your view, totally and completely. You have yet to concede that anything I have said is valid, including my initial post, but seeing as how this is MMfA that is to be expected. There are disagreements about the meaning of the words in the Constitution all the time.
You don't have to change anything, you just have to back it up in some manner.
And while everyone else in this thread is bent on making me prove my case, not a single one of you has really explained why enforcing the laws already on the books is somehow insufficient.
It's an obvious rationale for creating a distinction between a hate crime and a regular one, just like with RICO laws as you seemed to understand earlier.
See, this is why people call you a troll. You're neither addressing a very simple question, nor are you explaining why you shouldn't have to do so. I'm talking about your interpretation of Equal Protection as applied to another matter besides hate crimes. I hope that emphasis helps.
It seems entirely in line with what you've said. I'm not sure how that makes what I said much of an assumption, but in any event you have the opportunity to correct it, and yet you don't seem to be willing to make such a minor effort.
When you make a valid argument, then I'll agree. Your suggestion that we don't make laws based on what people are thinking during a crime was laughable. You have no Equal Protection argument, for several reasons. Even when you're told that it would apply to crimes against those in the majority, you brush it off. That also took care of the "different classes" part of your post. The only thing left is the "political correctness" argument, which is nonsense when you consider that there are valid reasons for creating this distinction.
So you think that effects on community should be ignored, and local law enforcement should be allowed to keep control of a case where they aren't putting forth their best effort because you think that the word "deny" applies to people who don't happen to be targeted due to majority status. If they were targeted, they would qualify as a victim of a hate crime, but since they aren't, then they're "denied" equal protection. Again, please tell me how I'm misrepresenting you. Otherwise, your argument is clearly nonsensical.
That has been explained through the points about the effect on the community and the availability of federal law enforcement to cover biased local enforcement. You don't really have any answers for those, but for some unexplained reason you don't accept that they show that the current laws are in any way insufficient. And that's our fault, somehow.
So let's turn it around and ask you why shouldn't we have this? You have zero Constitutional argument, obviously. Nobody's rights are being violated through it. Does your personal view of the concept of "political correctness" really qualify as an argument, even though you're not demonstrating how that constitutes any sort of harm or a violation of anyone's rights? Without such a case to make, shouldn't you step aside for the sake of people who just want to feel safe in our society, really?
That might be true if we were living in pre-civil rights legislation times but in 2009 can you show why the laws on the books are not sufficient to mete out appropriate punishment regardless of the individual thought processes at the time of a crime? Can you show some vast nationwide database of crimes directed at individuals based solely on their being part of a group at such levels as to justify the federal legislation ? Obviously you haven't. In really simple terms, the legislation is an attempt to somehow say that merely hating someone in the commission of a crime because of who they are or a group they represent makes the crime so much worse as to justify a harsher sentence. And in the end you and just about everyone else in this thread is apparently OK with all of that. Excuse me if I just don't quite see it your way.
So let's turn it around and ask you why shouldn't we have this?
1. Current laws on the books are sufficient in terms of punishment.
2. New class of victims - you're death is somehow worth less if you weren't hated when killed because those who were hated gets perpetrators harsher sentences.
3. One view of the Equal Protection clause is that states must apply laws equally and not give preference to one person or class of persons over another.
4. Hating someone should not be construed as a violation of someone else's rights.
And the chilling effect on the other people who share the hated trait in the community. You forgot about that part, for some strange reason.
And you, obviously, never answered any of these questions:
•If a person is killed in a hate crime, is that person more or less dead than if he was killed by a robber?
•Will the victim's family take solace in knowing that their loved one wasn't killed because someone hated them?
•Is a person who kills out of hatred any more dangerous to society than someone who kills for drug money or wanting to steal another's property?
Those are pretty simple questions - even I can answer them...
I guess you're a ignorant straight WASP because you have no perception of what happens in the real world.
Personally, I want someone who attacks another because of their skin color of sexual orientation or their religion to receive a harsher sentence. Why are you soft on crime?
Ever heard of Matt Shepherd?
But I'm just some neo con racist, sexist homophobe, right?
Opposing the actions of bigots can't be defined as bigotry itself. If that were to be possible, then pretty much everyone would be labeled that way, and there wouldn't be any distinction there. Either you're intolerant of people different than you, or you disapprove of those people and their actions, and either way you're a bigot. The framework is absurd.
"But just like affirmative action arguments in the past, hate crime legislation create a double standard by protecting groups instead of treating individuals on an equal basis."
So is your point that all murders should be judged the same, otherwise a "group" of victims is getting preferential treatment, or is it that minorities are getting preferential treatment because they are typically the victims of hate crimes? The affirmative action reference seems sort of odd.
The frameworks was supported the examples of different classes of victims and those whose beliefs make them, in essence, second class citizens. So the differences based on groups and ideas are perpetuated. I do not ever expect you to understand that. You haven't thus far.
So is your point that all murders should be judged the same, otherwise a "group" of victims is getting preferential treatment, or is it that minorities are getting preferential treatment because they are typically the victims of hate crimes? The affirmative action reference seems sort of odd.
Affirmative action, like hate crime bills, creates classifications based on group identity and not individuality. But again, I don't expect you to understand that concept.
Why do you have so much difficulty answering questions? Read it again.
I think that one of the underlying principles of the First Amendment is that people should not be punished for their beliefs. I would also expand that to include liberal-based societies in general. And our legal system distinguishes between acts and ideas. But in the case of hate crimes that distinction is blurred because those two themes now become intertwined.
Why do you have so much difficulty with that concept? Read it again.
Bigotry is wrong. Surely you recognize that. So it's not bigotry to judge those people harshly based on that.
I agree that bigotry is wrong. And, in the end, hate crime laws are society's way of teaching people that bigotry is bad. Surely you recognize that. (I hope the emphasis helps.) That's why hate crimes are less concerned with harm to the victim (judges address that during sentencing) but place more attention on the beliefs of the criminal. The legal system, in effect, is saying it's wrong to be a bigot. But in principle this is no different than to sentence a member of the Sierra Club to more jail time for damaging logging equipment because it is wrong to be an environmentalist.
I don't have any difficulties with that concept. My point is that the intertwining makes it different from mere thought. You're still not answering the question, nor are you addressing the point about "second-class citizens".
But you just said that the action and ideas were intertwined. So how is it now that society is teaching people that bigotry is bad, since bigotry is an idea? The legal system is saying that it's especially bad to take action based on bigotry. They are not condemning thought.
You mean the Matt Shepard in Wyoming who was robbed, beaten, and left strung up on a fence to die? The openly gay guy who has a bill named after him? That Matt Shepard? But of course I'm an idiot and an ignorant straight WASP and might have misunderstood.
Why are you soft on crime?
Why, exactly should a crime's punishment be harsher because of what one thinks a the time of commission? Didn't Shepard's murderers face a possible death sentence (though they ultimately received life sentences) for the crime? And that was with no hate crime legislation in place. How would you have made the punishment any harsher in that instance?
Oh, so because we have civil rights, that means there's no racism, sexism, homophobia or religious intolerance? And you can cite the current laws on the books all you like, but if people aren't enforcing the laws, then you would surely agree that the federal government should be able to take over an investigation.
If there aren't a great number of such cases, then there's not any great amount of some injustice that people are getting harsher sentences, now is there? Again, you're not showing harm or any violation of rights.j
1.You've ignored the arguments about community effect and federal investigations. Even in posts when you mention them, you don't address them in any meaningful way. Therefore your assertion is not substantiated.
2.If you're killed in an accident, are you worth less than if you were murdered? You're not talking about class based on race, gender, faith or sexual orientation now. Obviously we evaluate a crime based on the circumstances, and it's hard to believe you would want a system of judgment without that capability.
3.You are not making a good faith effort to address my points here, so I can safely laugh off your continued citation of Equal Protection.
4.Nobody said that being hated is a violation of rights. I have no idea what orifice you pulled that from.
Nobody's arguing that anyone is more or less dead, or there's any solace. As I said, "the chilling effect on the other people who share the hated trait in the community." You post that, then pose a bunch of questions that are not relevant to it in the slightest.
I did not say nor imply that racism, sexism, et al., does not exist. If current laws are not being enforced, what makes you think that additional laws to punish politically incorrect thoughts will actually improve enforcement? By the end of the year, probably all but five states will have some hate crime legislation on their books. Do you still want the federal government to intervene in the belief that enforcement rates will improve?
If there aren't a great number of such cases, then there's not any great amount of some injustice that people are getting harsher sentences, now is there? Again, you're not showing harm or any violation of rights.
Well, if there aren't a great number of cases, then what was the point of enacting hate crime legislation in the first place? As far as I can tell, it is to punish the politically incorrect thoughts of a person during the commission of a crime. And again, that is a concept you are apparently thoroughly comfortable with. And again, I am not comfortable with that concept.
But at least you are on the side of the majority. The Supreme Court validated the concept in the early 90's most states have their own laws as well as the federal government.
I guess we don't have to worry about any injustice in those five states, then, because the other 45 outweigh it. Holy cow. And again, if the federal government has the right to take over an investigation, then that insures that no local bias will impede justice. That's a benefit even if all 50 states had such laws on the books. You seem to have a great amount of trouble recognizing that.
If there aren't a lot of such cases, then why will 90% of states have laws about them? Doesn't that show that they consider it important whether it's happening often or not? And if the "politically incorrect" thoughts have an intimidating effect on other people, then it should be addressed. Again, incendiary and threatening speech is not protected.
or if a homophobic man takes a machine gun and guns down a gay pride parade full of people does that mean this guy is just a murder?
think on these two questions carefully
To proffer another example, what if a scientist who does cancer research on lab animals is brutally beaten to death by animal-rights activists? Wouldn't many of the same people who would argue for stiffer sentences in your examples object to harsher punishment in my example? Yet wouldn't the underlying principle be the same?
The new bill is basically an amendment that adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
So not all hate crimes have been treated equal. This makes everyone equal and gives every class EQUAL PROTECTION.
I realize that. Before all of the various rabbit trails were created my original post was against the premise of hate crimes legislation in general. Thanks for the reply!
The "Wow" was because you have already admitted that your original post didn't make any sense, yet you are still insisting that the subject was diverted from your original point, and trying to stand by that point that you have already disagreed with.
Again, wow.
problem being it exists. and so there is a need for it.
What hate crime legislation does is elevate punishment because of the motivation for the crime. If I spray paint my neighbor's volvo 'cause his dog poops on my lawn, or I do the same action because he's Baptist, I'm going to receive an elevated punishment for the second action. Is my second motivation/action worse for society than my first? The answer doesn't seem so cut and dry.