We supposedly don’t like hate crimes legislation and enhanced sentencing for people who do things that are against the law anyway, but do them because they’re prejudiced against the victim.
But is that really what we believe when it happens to “our side”?
{ 21 comments }
A fine point you bring up.
I’d ask, however, why is the murderer of a police officer or district attorney or judge treated more harsly than someone that murders Normal Joe?
They are because it’s an attack upon our system of government itself. It’s an attack upon how every American agrees to conduct themselves.
If a crime against a police officer is more offensive than against a normal citizen, I’d say the same should be so for an active duty soldier.
Well I’m a lawyer by a long shot, but it looks like apples and oranges to me if I understand it correctly.
In one case a crime carries an extra penalty by law that is built in. In the other there is no extra penalty provided by law. Only whatever extra discretionary penalty the law allows the court to exact.
Oh and as far as it being a “complex issue.” I think that is a goal that lawyer (and by extension politician) attempts to achieve with any issue no matter how simple.
Well, it was $5400 worth of damage, I read. No hate crime needed.
Yours,
Wince
What I have seen engaging conservatives on this story isn’t that this guy should get increased penalties because the victim was a Marine but that the perpetrator shouldn’t be able to avoid any penalty due to the Marine being deployed to Iraq and not being availible for court cases.
Of course their is moral aprobation from conservatives based upon his motivations, but I have never heard someone on the right say that we shouldn’t impose social penalties for motivations relating to crimes (such as shaming people for being racist.) It isn’t an extra legal penalty for society to think less of someone because of their motivations, and it is something we can, and should support even while denying the desirability of increased legal penalties for ‘hate crimes.’
Indeed, I would make the case that the extra-legal costs existing for this sort of behavior are necessary if we wish to avoid legally impossed penalties. Law is the beginning of enforcing social mores, but if it also becomes the end we are in a sad state.
Kevin,
how is the murder of an average joe not also an attack on how americans agree to conduct themselves? why should it matter if the target was a cop or judge or janitor? the law and its punishments should be blind to motivation, even if that motivation is the destruction of society itself.
the only exception to that should be in cases where the motivations are derived from criminal insanity.
We don’t mislike hate crimes laws. We think they’re rather a good thing. Or perhaps we were misusing the first person plural? :)
More substantively, I think you misunderstand the rationale for hate-crime’s legislation. If the attacker is attempting to intimidate all Marines as a group, then the attacker’s actions should not be considered only as they affect one person. To put it differently: when actions have broader effects, they have deeper consequences.
Andrew,
well, I think Ron is using “We” to denote the right, which I think you’ll agree you are not a member of. As to your second point, I would agree, but usually those broader effects put the act into a different class of crimes, terrorism, with their own legal definitions and penalties.
Actually, turns out I’m a prophet! Look at the updated link to Instapundit.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the Instapundit update, but it seems to me that one effective way to fight hate-crime legislation is to invoke it in situations where the kind-hearted souls who championed it never intended. In the end it could be the most effective way to expose them as the pure PC silliness they often are.
Or I could be way out in left field on this…
re
The police officer (and DA, judge)is generally placing his/her life at greater risk than ours in order to provide us with protection, and consequently their murder represents a loss across more than one dimension; their murder is loss of our protection, the greater penalty is for our liability as well as thiers.
re:
I am under the impression that a “hate crime” results when the victim is targeted because of whatever special-victim-group he/she/it identifies with, not when a crime is “attempting to intimidate” the whole group.
Either way, ‘hate crime’ classification is still nonsense.
Under the second impression, it’s nonsense because altering the crime’s classification due to the criminals’ biases is effectively applying improper discrimination to the rule of law.
Under the first impression, it’s nonsense because adults are fundamentally by-default responsible for their own emotional states, and it grossly corrupts the process of justice — along with other critical aspects of the basic adult social contract — to assign that responsibility to other Citizens.
And that’s just for starters. It is IDIOCY.
Couldn’t agree with you more. The FBI says:
I would like to see if “hate crimes” can mitigated by “diminished responsiblity.” Personal prejudices do not spring up spontaneously; if adults are not “by-default responsible for thier own emotional states,” then that would seem to be a reasonable defense. Maybe if one could identify individuals contributing to the prejudice that led to the crime, then…lots of outrageous possiblities up to RICO and holding the victim partially responsible. reducto ad absurdum — i.e. IDIOCY
So this guy that keyed a Marine’s car can lead on up to RICO against George Soros? :p
I think as matter of practical necessity the justice system should not make distinctions between the same act done with different intent. I simply don’t trust the wisdom of the system to make such distinctions.
That is how I understood Mike first point.
But it seems that Acksiom and Andrew’s views are, respectively, two sides of a highly philosophical dialectic. I suspect a good debater could run with both sides.
I suspect otherwise, given that a “good” debater would recognize the given if-then assertion as being cripplingly indefensible, since the second does not at all logically, let alone necessarily, follow from the first
Just because there is supposed to be an intention to intimidate (and if the charged party doesn’t confess to it, it’s unprovable, after all — or at least, with our current technology) more than one target does not automatically make any of the targets in question any less primarily and fundamentally responsible for their own emotional state; that must first be proven to be so, and without such proof the supposed case for different classification of the crime does automatically fail.
Acksiom,
Your argument regarding inability to prove intent or effect is interesting.
I don’t think it really is that way Ron. I don’t want the sentence increased because the victim was a marine – I just want the actual sentence imposed and not blown off. That isn’t exactly a “hate-crimes” position when you want the sentence that is available for the crime to be imposed.
Plus, as an attorney, I think Mr. Grodner should be held to a slightly higher standard. He knows better and has no excuse for not behaving better.
PS: I’m an attorney.
I think as matter of practical necessity the justice system should not make distinctions between the same act done with different intent.
Not intent, naftali – motivation. Intent (mens rea) is found in the description of the crime and is one of the necessary elements. Intent means that you meant for the result of your action to happen. Intent doesn’t look into why you meant for your action to happen – that is motivation and is almost never an element of a crime, and is something prosecutors don’t have to prove.
All the prosecution has to prove is that you committed all of the elements of the crime, from the physical actions (the actus reus) to the necessary intent (the mens rea) and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has never had to prove why you committed the crime and that is what “hate crimes” laws do – they make the prosecutor have to prove an extra element.
Personally, I think it is a dangerous thing for two reasons: (1) It adds more to the prosecutor and requires the jury to guess “what evil lurks in the hearts of men”, which is always difficult. And (2) it also opens the door to bringing in past actions and statements of the defendant’s that have nothing to do with the crime in question and are generally excluded as their probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudicial effect they have.
In actuallity, “hate crimes” legislation flies in the face of American evidentiary procedure as it allows the prosecutor to enter evidence that the defendant is just a “bad guy overall” and which makes the jury from consider evidence that has no bearing on the actual elements of the alleged crime. Very, very dangerous in my opinion.
Correction, not $5400 damage, but $2400 damage, and reputedly a felony.
Sorry,
Wince
Mike,
Thank you for drawing a distinction between intent and motivation. Point taken; I won’t confuse them again.
I will read the rest of your comment more carefully tommorow night.
Comments on this entry are closed.