Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about the new hate crime legislation making its way through Congress. HR 1592 adds gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals to the list of those protected under the definition of a hate crime. The bill will allow for harsher sentences for individuals whose offenses fall under the hate crime definition. HR 1592 will also provide federal money to help with the prosecution of hate crimes, and will allow for federal intervention if the state or locality is unwilling to move forward with prosecution.
This type of legislation leaves me scratching my head. The bill deals with violent crimes—the types of crimes that will be prosecuted whether “hate” is involved or not. Actually, if we’re talking about assault or murder I’m pretty sure hate is involved. Does it really matter exactly what kind of hate? The argument seems to be that in a hate crime, a specific community feels targeted and terrorized. I’ve also heard that perpetrators of hate crimes pose a more long-term threat than perpetrators of other violent crimes. Somehow a *regular* murderer isn’t as likely to kill again as one motivated by ‘hate’? I’m not really interested in testing out that theory.
There have been many comments on the concepts behind this legislation, and most have said it better than I can. Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the motivation, and people can be terrorized just as easily by a crime that is not motivated out of hate–the Virginia Tech massacre comes to mind.
The current fear is that this legislation will lead to encroachment on our right to free speech, and in particular might be used to curtail Christians from speaking out against homosexuality. HR 1592 clearly refers to violent crimes, and not speech. However, the intent is certainly to criminalize thought. What exactly makes a hate crime worse than some other violent crime? The thought behind it. And once the state starts imposing harsher sentences because of the thoughts surrounding the crime it does not seem a great leap to prevent the hate crime by prosecuting the thoughts that lead to it. Maybe we should start making our tin foil hats.
April 26, 2007 at 9:33 pm |
Great post. I agree you should be punished for the crime, regardless of your motivation.
April 27, 2007 at 6:02 am |
EXCELLENT post. Thank you for looking at this piece of legislation from the ‘thought police’ stance. I have no intention of speaking anything about homosexuality, period, but I don’t like the idea that I cannot say what I like as an American, under my Freedom of Speech protections. Why even have Freedom of Speech if we have laws like these?
April 29, 2007 at 7:03 am |
[...] VCAP has a great post on HR1592 which adds gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals to the current hate crimes legislation. My views on hate crime legislation are well known, but I believe the concern of certain folks that they won’t be able to say mean things about gay folks is a tad over the top. [...]
April 29, 2007 at 9:42 am |
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech” – but does this bill punish speech? No, it punishes intent – mens rea – which has always been an element of crime since before the Revolution. Do you know the definition of assault in most states? It requires “serious bodily harm,” like a broken arm – otherwise, it’s a misdemeanor, and do most police departments and courts take them seriously? No – they get plea bargained down, as do 95% of criminal cases. Because communities can’t afford to bust the budget by investigating every crime.
But targeting people for assault because of minority status targets the whole minority community, unlike an ordinary assault. 8,000 reported incidents last year targeted minority communities. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april06/hatecrimes041006.htm And since it is well known that the FBI stats are underreported, it’s probably more like twice or three times that.
If it was your family they were after, you’d have a different opinion.
April 30, 2007 at 1:30 pm |
The “Philadelphia 11″ ran afoul of Pennsylvania’s hate crime laws. They spent a night in jail and faced up to 47 years in prison for a slew of charges issuing from their peaceful counterdemonstation at a Pink Angel “gay” rally in Philadelphia. World Net Daily has a good series of articles on this, which occurred in October 2004. The “gays” were being hateful and harassing the Christian counterdemonstrators, who were apparently only holding signs and were given permission to gather on the sidewalk by policemen on the beat. Just by standing there with a Christian, presumably anti-homosexual act message, they were deemed to have violated Pennsylvania’s hate crime legislation. This ought to scare the daylights out of everybody, the more so because the MSM studiously avoid mentioning the whole mess.
Score: Lions:1, Christians:?
August 6, 2007 at 7:49 am |
A new fraud on the Internet
A new fraud on the Internet
October 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
I don’t totally disagree with the point that one violent crime is no worse than another. However, I doubt the intent is to criminalize thought. There is a benefit to giving funding and manpower in order to help solve a crime that would very often go unpunished.
But what I find puzzling is a conservative referencing Orwell in order to defend their position on civil rights. Have you actually read 1984? It’s about a RIGHT WING dictatorship that not only uses Thought Police to punish dissent but also preaches hatred and violence against anyone they consider “different”.
October 11, 2007 at 10:30 am |
D.A.,
I understand why you say the crime would otherwise go unpunished? Violent crimes get punished, regardless of whether they were motivated by “hate” or not.
As to my 1984 reference, totalitarian states (aka “Oceania”) really don’t differ from left wing dictatorships (aka the former Soviet Union) in their approach to diversity of thought. And a right wing dicatorship bears no similarity to conservative government.