|
Author
|
Topic: Important Crimes, Important Victims (Nov. 2000)
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-30-2000 01:47 AM
   
I thought that was a solid piece, and I agree with the point Kevin's making. Very often hate crime legislation gets characterized as giving special treatment to certain ethnic or religious groups, and the actual wording of the law makes quite clear that that is impossible. If anything, I wonder if Kev didn't underemphasize his point with the breakdown of victims -- I mean, I wonder how many white men were included in the "gay men" or "Jewish" categories, just to name a few from the article. I also think the issue of hate crime legislation as a possible regulation of thought is an important one to understand. Our legal system has already admitted state of mind and intent into the criminal statutes; intent is one of the fundamental requirements for first degree murder in many circumstances. I don't see anyone saying that the definition of murder one will lead to society making it a crime to think about killing someone. One thing that did concern me a little bit was the way Kev ended the piece . . . I definitely get what he's saying, but it seems
to me that if the system were to become systemically unfair to white men, or even to be perceived as such by reasonable people, the result would likely not be empathy with previously victimized groups and a determination to forge a fairer society; in
my mind, it would far more likely be a backlash, continued mistrust and animosity, and another roadblock to forging a true community. |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 10-30-2000 01:51 AM
I agree with Kevin and I agree with Dave and you know how that makes me crazy. More specifically, I agree with the major points that each raises. I have heard the arguement made that hate crimes legislation is an attempt to infringe upon free speech and free thought before and, frankly, it has always left me befuddled. As Dave pointed out, our legal system has neither the inclination nor the psychic power to prosecute crimes while they are still in the "thought" stage. We also don't prosecute people for simply being Neo-nazis, KKK members, or Just Plain Mad at Everyone Else. Our "bleeding heart liberal"
media may not say nice things about them, but these people are not arrested and tried simply for stating their beliefs. They
are tried when they start hurting and killing people, but you know what: hurting and killing people have been considering crimes
for several thousand years now, long before the New York Times or CNN. Kevin's points on the topic were very succinct, summed up quite nicely with the "put the tire iron down" statement.However, (and this is the agreeing with Dave part) I think he does undercut much of his own good intentions in implying that if
white, male, heterosexuals were wronged by the system, it would even out the scales. Bleeding heart liberal that I am, Kevin, I
have to say, that's exactly the kind of thinking that is a hindrance to any real progress in building a legal system in which hate crimes legislation is obsolete. Giving one group, no matter which group it is, a "taste of their own medicine" is as much a step in the wrong direction as stocking up on tire irons, maybe even more so. |
slgorman
One of the Regulars
|
posted 11-13-2000 10:39 PM
Well, agreeing with all of you is driving me batty. So what's next? What can someone, especially someone who is in a place of power (read: educator, we seem to have a lot of those around here), do about this? Well, unfortunately I don't have an answer. But I have a suggestion. Learning about other persons' beliefs, culture, etc. can go a long way, for some people, towards avoiding some of these crimes in the first place. For some ideas/materials to help increase cultural diversity or provide training, you may want to investigate these monographs and diversity education packages. Or visit The Center for Cultural Fluency for additional resources. (I admit a bit of bias in this promo, I am a proud Mt St Mary's College alumna, and found it one of the most rewarding periods of time in my life. I'm tempted to get that one video with Maya Angelou to see if I can spot myself or friends in the audience!) [This message has been edited by slgorman (edited 11-13-2000).] |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-14-2000 12:41 PM
Excellent idea, slg. The best way to fight prejudice and hatred is to get people at an early age and teach them that it's wrong. Sometimes that's hard, especially for teachers whose parents think they're trying to brainwash kids, but for every kid that thinks something's a bad idea, there are potentially ten more kids who will follow that kid.Another good place to look is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They've been around for quite a while and have lots of experience in spotlighting hate crimes and pointing out what causes them. |
Cap
Just Got Here
|
posted 11-14-2000 04:45 PM
The problem with hate crime laws is that they can be used against people who have not committed hate crimes. Kevin touches very little on that in his article. He says, "It all depends on what the investigators of the crime determine to be the reason behind it." This leaves too much power in the hands of the investigators and prosecutors. It seems like another attempt from the bleeding hearts to tell us how to think and what we have been thinking and why it is wrong. Let's prosecute the laws equally and without bias.
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 11-14-2000 06:20 PM
I think you're tangling two very different issues, Cap. The issue of how prosecutors determine whether a crime was motivated specifically by bias is very distinct from the issue of whether biased thoughts and beliefs are "permitted" and whether hate crimes laws can be used to police or regulate thought.The first is, I admit, something of a thorny problem, but I would contend it is no more or less thorny than the issue of determining whether or not an accused murderer meant to kill his or her victim, or whether or not the accused murderer planned the attack. These involve questions of fact as to the state of mind and thought process of the accused, and it's up to a judge and jury to decide those questions of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. If KKK members burn a cross on a black family's lawn and chant "****** get out," or if someone tells several people "I'm gonna go kill some white people" and then does, then I think it's pretty clear that those crimes are motivated by bias and are intended to intimidate and threaten all members of the targeted group, in the same way terrorist attacks against Americans are intended to intimidate and threaten all Americans. So while proving a hate crime is a difficult task, it is not in principle a reason to reject hate crimes laws. The second issue, that hate crimes laws might be used to tell us what to think, is quite frankly a straw man. For starters, hate crime legislation has been on the books for years, and I am unaware of a single case where it was used to prosecute someone who merely held biased beliefs. In fact, according to the Human Rights Campaign, to whom Kevin linked in his article, the existing federal hate crimes law has not been used more than 10 times in a year since 1969. No one has attempted to arrest the Ku Klux Klan for violating hate crimes laws during their rallies, no one has tried to throw Bob Jones in jail for his comments about Catholics. Like I said in my initial reply, that intending to kill someone is a component of first-degree murder does not mean that merely intending or wanting to kill someone is sufficient to get you thrown in jail. Read the legislation, and please tell me how it can be used to regulate thought. And please, ease up on the "bleeding hearts" stuff. Let's keep the focus on the arguments and the facts. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-14-2000 11:30 PM
Cap, you won't ever hear me supporting any legislation designed to truncate anyone's right to feel, think, say or promote just about any thought or idea they please. I wouldn't write an article supporting increased hate crimes legislation if I thought it would affect people's rights to think their own thoughts.Some folks like to say that hate crime legislation will lead inevitably to hate speech legislation, but I find that these are generally uninformed statements. The ACLU, which generally supports hate crime legislation, has defended racist organizations in the past. The staunchest supporters of hate crimes bills would likely be the first to put their necks on the line to defend someone's right to say things that are offensive. Free speech and the right to assemble are the most fundamental rights the citizens of any society can have, since without them, it's really difficult to get anything else done. Think about this: Were James Byrd or Matthew Shepherd given the chance to exercise their own freedom of speech? I mean, if there are people in the world willing to take a person's life because that person is something different, how would those people react to someone who says something different? Killing those guys was the ultimate abridgement of their rights to fee speech, because it took away their ability to be who they are. Abuse isn't speech. Abuse is abuse. If I say I don't like Dave, that's OK. If I drag Dave behind a truck until his head and his arms break off, that's clearly wrong. Some forms of expression should be protected. Some -- like ones whose direct result is spilt blood -- should not. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-15-2000 01:23 AM
I just remembered a program I was involved in in California (at this point, slg might know more than I do about this) called Peace Patrol. Yeah, the name is pretty cheesy, but it really worked.Basically, it was a lecture program that taught kids not to fight, and the stupidity of solving problems in destructive ways. It's pretty relevant in this string, I think, but the only link I could find was here. |
Cap
Just Got Here
|
posted 11-16-2000 10:23 AM
Dave, I don’t see how I can be twisting two arguments. I am not lodging the argument that hate crime laws attempt to tell us how to think; rather, I theorize that prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and judges can convolute and twist these laws to convict people of a hate crime, even if hate were not the motivation. While I agree with you that if someone says "I am going to kill you because you are white" before pulling the trigger is a very clear cut example of a hater crime, such cases are very rare. I disagree, however, with the statement "If KKK members burn a cross on a black family's lawn and chant "****** get out," or if someone tells several people "I'm gonna go kill some white people" and then does, then I think it's pretty clear that those crimes are motivated by bias". While the act of shout asterisks at someone is reprehensible, logistically, the fact of being biased and carrying out a crime based on that bias are two different issues. For example, I hate Michigan drivers; I have said it many times. Now, if I were a violent person who has a tendency toward road rage and one day I was cut off by someone who happened to be a Michigan driver and I ran them off the road, your logic would suggest that was a hate crime. However, I did not run them off the road because they were from Michigan, rather, I ran them off the road because they cut me off. Similarly, too many liberals see any classification of a person based on race, religion, or ethnicity as wrong or biased. That scares me. People with this thinking easily twist anything with mention of color, etc. into a bias issue. We, as human beings, have the necessity to classify people. These classifications can range from tall to short; from thin to fat; from white to black; etc. Pointing out easily distinguishable features is not racist or biased. Could someone who said" I am going out to kill a tall man" be prosecuted under hate crime laws? Kevin, you present the argument that "Some folks like to say that hate crime legislation will lead inevitably to hate speech legislation, but I find that these are generally uninformed statements." The fact that remains, though, is that under hate crime laws, we can be prosecuted for our words. If I say I am going to kill someone because he is white, I am guilty of a hate crime. I embrace my right to free speech, just as I embrace my other Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
|
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-16-2000 11:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Cap:
Now, if I were a violent person who has a tendency toward road rage and one day I was cut off by someone who happened to be a Michigan driver and I ran them off the road, your logic would suggest that was a hate crime. However, I did not run them off the road because they were from Michigan, rather, I ran them off the road because they cut me off..
Cap, the key phrase in your statement is "happened to be." If you were a member of some anti-Michigan driver guild, then yeah, you'd have a tough time proving in court that your crime wasn't biased. But the nature of hate crime legislation is not to prosecute cases in which the perpetrator and the victim are of two different origins, but to examine intent. And there's also no standard for crimes against Michigan drivers, because there aren't enough of such crimes to demand statistics. Federal legislation addresses crimes based on religion, race and ethnic origin. But not sexual orientation, yet. And your statement "too many liberals see any classification of a person based on race, religion, or ethnicity as wrong or biased" may or may not be true, but it's not really addressing the issue. I agree that we can't help but classify, and when a minority person walks into my all-white newsroom, I generally take note of his ethnicity. There's nothing illegal about noticing someone is black, or even commenting on it, or even calling him names because of it (though that last one might get you fired). But taking action against him only because he's black is illegal, and should be.
quote:
Could someone who said" I am going out to kill a tall man" be prosecuted under hate crime laws?
No, again, because the statute doesn't address issues of height. If thousands of people across the U.S. were murdered for shopping at big and tall men's shops, then it likely might be. quote:
Originally posted by Cap:
The fact that remains, though, is that under hate crime laws, we can be prosecuted for our words. If I say I am going to kill someone because he is white, I am guilty of a hate crime.
You can't be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill him. You can be prosecuted for killing him. Cap, I see what you're getting at with all this, but the fact remains that there are hundreds of groups across the nation that specialize in hating people because they're black or Jewish or gay or whatever. These people are allowed to embrace and proselytize these beliefs, as well they should be, and I would defend their right to do so. But the fact remains, many of these people (and visit Christian Identity and Posse Comatitus and KKK websites if you don't believe me) advocate the killing of people just because they're different, and they hide behind that most fundamental of amendments to do so. It infuriates me to see these people using my right to free speech to disseminate their horrible, horrible ideas, to teenagers, to kids, to the otherwise uninformed, but the fact is there's nothing we can do to stop it, becuase to abridge their rights is to abridge our own. A horrific by-product of these evangelists of hate and the beliefs they spew forth is that people get killed. Little kids get killed. Guys who never hurt anyone in their lives get killed. And if there's a way to more vigorously prosecute these people when they do kill, or vandalize, or rape, or maim, then I will embrace it as radically as they embrace their racism and homophobia and misunderstanding. The FBI should not raid a man's home for having bookmarked websites on his hard drive, or dropping leaflets on people's cars. But when this man kills someone, or breaks windows in a synagogue, or steps even one millimeter over the First Amendment, every bit of evidence should be used to prosecute this man with all the fury we and our elected officials can muster.
(edited for coding)
[This message has been edited by Kevin Ott (edited 11-16-2000).] |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 11-16-2000 12:43 PM
Cap, my claim that you are tangling two arguments comes from your claim that hate crimes laws are seemingly "another attempt by the bleeding hearts to tell us how to think", which sounded to me like you felt that hate crimes laws were a step to the policing of thought. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize, but I do think it was a fair inference from what you wrote.As for your reservations: if I understand your logic, the fact that prosecutors and judges can either err or deliberately misconstrue the mental state of a defendant, leading to the possibility that that defendant would be convicted of a crime that (s)he did not commit, means that hate crimes laws are unfair. How is this different from other types of crimes? A prosecutor has to prove that there was intent to kill in a murder case, that there was a violation of consent in sexual assault cases, that there was knowledge of the circumstances in receipt-of-stolen-property cases. In all of these situations, errors can be made. In all of these situations, human judgment is required on issues of thoughts or states of mind. Yet we do not say that these laws are unfair; we instead establish a procedure by which a judge and/or jury are supposed to determine the facts of the situation as best they are able and rule from there. It's not perfect, but it's what being human is all about, as we're discussing over in the Philosophy forum. |
Cap
Just Got Here
|
posted 11-16-2000 03:50 PM
quote:
If you were a member of some anti-Michigan driver guild, then yeah, you'd have a tough time proving in court that your crime wasn't biased.
Kevin, that is exactly what I am saying! I would be punished for a crime I did not commit! While you say, "And there's also no standard for crimes against Michigan drivers, because there aren't enough of such crimes to demand statistics. Federal legislation addresses crimes based on religion, race and ethnic origin. But not sexual orientation, yet." you are careful to include the important word "yet." Give the bleeding hearts and inch and they'll take a mile. You are right in saying, "You can't be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill him. You can be prosecuted for killing him." I made an error in my syntax. I should have written it to say "If I say I am going to kill someone because he is white, and kill him, I am guilty of a hate crime." Please don't get me wrong, the notion of perpetrating a crime against someone based on his color or religion abhors me. However, so does the notion of railroading someone for a crime they did not commit.
Dave, you bring about a valid point with your argument about proving intent. However, proving intent for the crimes you described can be done with tangible evidence. For instance, the reason date rape cases so rarely end in convictions is because there is circumstantial evidence that can prove/disprove consent. With a hate crime, by virtue of association, one can be tried as a hate crime offender without the intent. Please refer to the Michigan driver argument previously lodged for further explanation of this concept.
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 11-16-2000 04:22 PM
You have a good point about association being used to prove intent, but in your hypothetical case, defense lawyers could, I think, raise reasonable doubt that your attack was motivated by your bias as opposed to your road rage. If, on the other hand, you were a member of a group of anti-Michigan drivers, and you waited in a parking lot for someone with a Michigan license plate to pull out, and then you followed that person and ran him or her off the road, I think a clearer case could be made. But again, that's a question of fact to be decided by the judge and jury. The truth is it would be a very hard burden for the prosecution to meet, just as in the date rape cases you cite. But we don't let the high burden and high incidence of acquittals stop us from declaring date rape to be a crime and from trying to prosecute it; why should we allow it to stop us from declaring acts of violence directed at specific groups to be a crime as well? At this point, Cap, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we might be agreeing on principle and disagreeing on execution.I'm also not sure if I agree with Kevin that mere membership in a hate group can be used as proof of intent, although it might be a good piece of circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof has to be high here, and should include some act on the part of the criminal that indicates that a particular group is being singled out. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 01-04-2001 10:26 PM
See, it's ideas like the ones promoted here that lend a sense of validity to the armchair racist buttholes and purveyors of irrational hatred in the United States. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-09-2001 02:17 AM
I just want to reinforce that people should go check out the article Kev references here. Two things struck me:1) The points Horowitz makes about liberal hypocrisy are damning. Maybe you can rationalize some of the behavior in some way by saying that given the prejudicial attitudes of many Americans, the truth must sometimes be hidden to avoid inflaming them. It's still stupid, counterproductive, and against everything that progressivism and tolerance should stand for. 2) The arguments Horowitz makes against hate crimes legislation are much weaker, in my opinio, because they rest on the same old premise that hate crimes legislate thought, which well-constructed hate crimes do not do. Given the ratcheting up of rhetoric concerned with hate crimes, though, maybe that's the real fear -- that we'll get so caught up in things that we enact poorly constructed laws. It's a valid fear, but no reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-18-2001 05:12 AM
One counterargument against the one we've been making in support of HCL is that it's nearly impossible to identify every reason someone might single out a victim to send a message to a larger group. What if someone resents the rich and so decides to shoot a prominent businessman? Isn't that just as much a hate crime as a lynching? Maybe instead of specific hate crimes laws, a toughening up of the more general laws against criminal intimidation would be called for here. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 02-01-2001 12:27 PM
It seems that HCL is a legislative reaction to pervasive attitudes in society about race, creed and sexual orientation, which is why arguments like "What if I shoot someone because he's driving a Toyota?" (or whatever) don't work, since there aren't really any organizations or churches dedicated to hating such tiny segments of the population.But point taken. I'm not all too fond of the mega-rich (it's jealousy, mostly), and I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who share that feeling, regardless of whether there are anti-rich organizations or websites like godhatesrichpeople.com. If a bunch of us gathered to kick the crap out of Bill Gates, that might be considered just as much of a hate crime. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 02-01-2001 12:42 PM
I definitely see the point that most of the "message-crimes" would occur against historically-persecuted groups. But I'm not sure "most" is good enough to insulate HCL from the charge that it privileges certain kinds of crimes over others. Stepping up laws against intimidation or terroristic threats or something like that might be a way to encompass all the crimes that would count as "message crimes" without creating the hostility.Come to think of it -- couldn't you, in a way, consider the Unabomber attacks to be a hate crime? Or the Oklahoma City bombing? In each case, a guy who really hated a segment of society was trying to send a message to that segment by attacking some members of that segment. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 02-01-2001 10:56 PM
OK -- so is there a viable legislative option available to go after those who would hurt people because of race or creed or sexual orientation? |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 02-01-2001 11:36 PM
Perhaps we should do some research into the "terroristic threat" and "intimidation" laws and start urging that they be used or interpreted appropriately, so that we don't have to explicitly state which groups you're not allowed to target. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 09-20-2001 12:06 AM
Another topic that deserves a bump. Read this column by an Arab American sportswriter. It demonstrates how violence directed toward a group affects everyone in the group indirectly. I don't know if hate crime laws are the best answer, but we need ananswer for this. |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 09-20-2001 02:59 PM
My heart goes out the Arab community for having to endure this. It angers me when people I work with get all self righteous about not going to certain gas stations in the area because they are owned by people of Arab descent. I want to shake some sense into some people. If I hear someone say "deport all these foreigners" one more time I'm going to scream. It's ironic, on TV they keep talking about how united we all are after these attacks. Judging by what I hear some people say, we've become less tolerant of one another. Isn't that what the terrorists wanted? |
slgorman
One of the Regulars
|
posted 09-20-2001 03:43 PM
And it's not just Arabs, but their families and friends, that are also affected. I'd try to expound on this, but Deborah is just so much more eloquent than I.A small mosque was set to open in a very tiny rural community not 10 miles from my home. I heard at a prayer service last Friday that the opening has been delayed for fear of attacks. Like I wasn't already upset enough, but I totally lost it when I heard that. This means people living in the USA are afraid to worship how they choose. I can't, as a decendent of Puritan Pilgrims, think of anything less American than this. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 09-21-2001 02:31 AM
I'm still holding out hope that these folks are an ugly minority, but it does point out that not even a major tragedy such as this is enough to combat longstanding ignorance and fear.I'm not even going to get into what folks liek Falwell and Robertson are doing to poison the wells. Robertson's apparently brought some born-again-Christian who's a former Muslim onto his show to talk about how violent and hateful and expansionist the Islamic faith is, and that everyone who points out that these acts are a perversion of the Islamic faith is engaged in a disinformation campaign. Because the flarging Inquisition was such an example of religious tolerance and peace, love and understanding. Sheesh. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-12-2001 03:44 PM
Right. Ask all those women who died in Massachusetts around 1720 how they feel about religious disinformation campaigns. You might also want to ask J.K. Rowling and Joss Whedon.Anyway, I was pretty incensed a few weeks ago when I was driving past a gas station with my Uncle, and he pointed out that the reason the owner had nailed plywood over the door was because someone had thrown a brick through it. The guy was Arab-American. He also told me about another gas station where a guy had put out about a million American Flags after September 11. That guy was also Arab-American. After sl's note about people being afraid to practice their faith for fear of reprisal, I wonder, too, whether this guy put out the flags as a real show of support or because he was afraid of what might happen to him if he didn't. That's not my idea of America. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
