I’ve been thinking a lot about political labels recently. Not that I relish agreeing with Politically Incorrect’s Bill Maher, but I agree with what he said recently about hate crimes – people should be prosecuted for their actions, not their thoughts. If someone is assaulted or killed, prosecute them on that basis – not on the basis of why they did it, if we can even presume to understand that.
So I guess I agree with conservatives on that point.
But I’m also agree with libertarians about the so-called “drug war”: I think all drugs (all) should be legalized and regulated. Don’t fill up prisons with drug offenders, who only become more likely to commit other crimes after they emerge from prison. It’s just bad public policy, whatever stern moral view we may take about drug abuse.
I think political labels sometimes stop us from considering each issue on its own merits – not to mention the complexity of other people’s opinions. Do you consider yourself a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or something else? And why?
I have to agree with you about the labels Adam. Most people have both conservative and liberal ideas. To clump them into this or that group is unfair and totally disregards the ideas that don’t necessarily fit into the “Party Line”
what the conservatives leave out when talking about HATE CRIMES is that we do, as a society, include WHY someone KILLS another person – hence the many variations on manslaughter, murder, etc. And varying limits on punishment are accorded those particular crimes – i.e a woman comes home sees her husband fucking her sister, and kills them, its called “heat of Passion” murder, is not deemd as serious/threatening as the guy who just killed a security guard to get a bag of money from a bank – exactly because of what we infer is theri intent. In each case a person was killed, but we call them 2 different kinds of killing, and give different amounts of time in prison. It may not come up much outside of killing, but we do this, and HATE CRIMES would not be an exception to the principle of “motive/thought” doesn’t count. And those same conservatives don’t like to compare HATE CRIMES to TERRORISM, although its along the same vein – the INTENTION behind why the peson is commititing the crime. I just wish these folks would say what they mean, which is,” if its about GAY FOLKS, I don’t want to give them protection, period.” Bill Maher is notorioulsy homophobic, and uses his libertarian ideas when its convenient. He sympatisizes a lot more with animals than he does children, even! Just yer basic selfish single middle aged str8 white man, UGH!
I do agree that we consider intent when punishing someone for an assault or murder. But I don’t think the issue of premeditation (second- versus first-degree murder, for example) is the same as deciding whether something was a hate crime. If you decide to kill your wife’s lover, is that less serious than deciding to kill your neighbor because he made a pass at you?
I haven’t figured it all out yet. And I do think that some people’s disagreement with hate crimes laws comes from their homophobia. The more we talk about these issues, the less accepted homophobia will become.
Hate crime laws restrict the ability for the judge and jury to evaluate the subtle nuances of a particular case and decide upon an appropriate punishment. I understand that this is the major drawback in the mandatory drug sentencing laws of the Regan era- submitted by Tip O’Neil if I’m not mistaken. One could imagine scenarios that would test hate crime measures like an interracial crime of passion or a homosexual killing someone who resisted an advance. To prosecute on the basis of thought may be a perverse violation of the first amendment. I agree with the author that the action itself should be the basis for punishment and intent may be evaluated, but not to alter the fundamental crime.
not to beat a dead horse, but we DO ALREADY use what we think you are THINKING/INTENDING when evaluating crimes. Most of us are familiar with the logic of limiting your free speech if what you say is FIRE! in a crowded theatre when you know there is no fire. The first amednment is NOT absolute. But of course, limitations on these rights must be narrow and carefully tailored. I guess I am just bothered by the unilateral dismissal of the concept of HATE CRIMES as an infringement of free speech. Yes there are problems, and yes, sometimes the HATE CRIME laws are prooly drafted, or unwisely used. But just look at this recent story and you’ll see that some crimes aren’t just about the particular act against the particular person. A clear message of intimidation against a whoel group of people is meant by these sorts of crimes. And remember, criminal law isn’t just about punishing a person for what they’ve done to another person; it is considerd a “crime against the state” and criminal law is also a vehicle for articulating what is unacceptable conduct. And is about prevention, and its about predicting possible recurrances; that’s why there is a “lesser” crime for “heat of passion” where the wife kills the husband during the shock of sexual misconduct – that’s less preventable, and less likely to be repeated. The killing because of a pass? well, – YES THAT’s more reprehensible than what I consider a more “normal” reaction to catching your spouse screwing around. And to suggest that intent SHOULDN’t be used to decide the nature of the crime DOES go against the current state of the law for killing and other violent crimes. —– I think it’s very important to make distinctions in this area of HATE CRIME, because like many other “catch phrases” it’s meaning gets diminshied and altered over time and misuse; a mere calling a an objectionable name at someone, no, I wouldn’t want to see that person locked up (well, I might, but I don’t think it would be the right thing to do….) Which is why I don’t like the idea of a simple “for” or “against” hate crime legislation – I think there may well be some areas that many folks would agree, and some areas where many folks would disagree (i.e prohibitions on “pure speech”).
I’m uncomfortable with hate crime laws (it seems to me like putting a bandaid on a huge, gaping wound), but there is a good argument for them. And it’s not, “We already judge motive.” Distinctions like Manslaughter, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. judge INTENT, not motive.
Hate crime laws are more similar to harsher sentences for killing a cop or a witness to a crime. Some people don’t like putting minority groups in this category, where it seems like we’re saying they’re more important than other people. But I don’t think it’s about that. The reason why it’s worse to kill a cop or a witness is because it affects the justice system itself — and these people put their lives on the line on behalf of the justice system.
You can make a similar argument with minority groups. Hate crime laws don’t say their lives are worth more — they say, bigotry damages the culture in a way that a regular mugging doesn’t. And to be gay or black in this country is, in a way, putting your neck out there.
My mother was killed knocking on the door of he boyfriends home…he opened the door and simply shot her…a friend of mine was killed in a*passion* crime. After being a victim personaly I feel if one is willing to point a gun, or strangle someone it should be in the killers mind set that they are willing to give their life right then and right there. We as a whole cannot allow killing to go unsentanced because of difference…all killing is a form of hate.If the killer knew he was also ending his life by committing the crime I believe alot of it would come to a hault