Comments on: Jim DeMint fears Orwell, thought, compassion

By: Random101

Random101 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:53:46 +0000

Otis,

I would tend to agree with your argument in the case of non-violent crimes that involve harassment or intimidation. For example: the burning of a cross in someone’s front yard is much more than a case of vandalism or trespassing.

However, in the case of violent crimes I find the Senator’s position more compelling. I can’t improve on the arguments made above. If a person feels they are in a mistreated group, then any crime committed against them will be a hate crime from their point of view. I also think that hate crime legislation is sometimes used as remedy for inequality in sentencing.

By: otis

otis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:09:50 +0000

Well, suffice to say I respect some of the above arguments and I’m glad people are at least thinking.

By: Gamecock

Gamecock — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:02:21 +0000

There are plenty against hate crime legislation for legitimate reasons.

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent homosexual, makes an excellent argument on why hate legislation makes those they seek to protect into victims:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990926mag-hate-essay.html

By: Charles Wagener

Charles Wagener — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:33:01 +0000

Three thoughts:
You said, “sex crime laws allow for steeper punishments when the sexual assault is perpetrated on a child. The same goes for the murder of a police officer or other public official.” I don’t agree that the penalties you mentioned are higher because of motive, I think they are higher because in both those cases the victims require a higher level of protection.

You also asked, “which is more abhorrent: Punching a guy in the nose because he spilled beer on your wife or punching a guy in the nose because he is homosexual?” I think both ACTS are equally abhorrent, the motives are not equal for me, but someone else might feel differently.

Lastly, I am worried about this law because I saw what happened after 9/11 when many who questioned the government were considered unpatriotic. When we start to codify what people are allowed to think, I am extremely worried that we will one day face a time when merely thinking certain things will be illegal. I don’t think it’s a “slippery slope,” this law doesn’t guaranty that thoughts will become crimes, it’s just one step down a path. But it is a step that troubles me very deeply.

By: Special K

Special K — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:55:50 +0000

I don’t think your examples of laws that protect police and children are enough like the current hate crime legislation to make your point valid. We do give additional protection to police because we ask them to do a job for us that makes them a bigger target to those folk the police protect us from. We make exceptions for children as they, by definition, are less able to protect themselves than most adults. I think both of those examples are more about who the potential victim is rather than what is on the mind of the criminal.

I am sure that I will not get the same protection that a black or gay man would get if I were assaulted by a WASP hating bigot. See http://www.vdare.com/malkin/090604_injustice.htm and http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2009/06/19/black-lesbians-murder-man-for-being-heterosexual/ and http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/gregory_kane/Dont-ignore-hate-crimes-against-whites-50988987.html There are plenty of examples of minorities committing violent crimes against non-minorities and not getting the hate-crime prosecution. This law is just bigotry in another form. I oppose bigotry in all forms and therefore, this legislation.

By: otis

otis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:24:02 +0000

Gene: Completely agree. Hate speech is and should be protected. I don’t wannna hear it, but people have a right to say whatever they want. But, I think the requirement to prove motive in a hate crime is exactly what makes it such a good law. Prosecutors who do not have enough proof that a particular brand of hate was a the motive would be smart to not go forward with prosecution under a hate crime statute. Sure, a statute can be abused, but find an unethical officer of the court and he’ll find a way to abuse the most benign of laws.

By: Mean Gene

Mean Gene — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:15:13 +0000

I’m of two minds on this–it’s not illegal to be a bigot/racist/sexist and it shouldn’t be. If you make it against the law to be a scumbag you set yourself skidding on a slippery slope indeed. The problem with hate crime laws is determining a person’s motivation when a crime is committed, and that’s a tall order. I think hate crime laws could be useful when there’s an obvious premeditation (firebombing a black church, thugs attacking people at a gay rights march, etc) but applying those laws could present serious ethical dilemmas for judicial officers with ethics and serious opportunities for abuse by officers without ethics.