“Why There are Critics of the Federal Hate-Crimes Legislation, like Jindal and Vitter, Who are Hypocrites”
Dear Blogger:
A person capable of enacting a hate crime, perhaps, and just maybe, might be dissuaded from committing a violent act due to the enhanced resources to prosecute and punish under the recently enacted federal legislation signed into law by President Obama.
Terrorism, an act likely to involve, and threaten, a broad sector of the population, understandably, is harshly punishable under federal law. And the most serious of all federal crimes.
Acts of hate are equally likely to involve, and threaten, a broad sector of the population. But, unfortunately, not all states have enacted hate-crime legislation, a justification for the federal legislation.
The African-American girls, murdered in a fire bomb attack on an Alabama church, while attending Sunday school, and the three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi, had their civil rights violated. A violation of federal law, and justifiably so since Southern states were not generally aggressive in prosecuting, and convicting, such horrid acts of terror.
On the West Bank of Jefferson Parish, when a white person poured gasoline on an auto with a three year old African-American boy in the auto, attempting the set the car on fire, while shouting racial epitaphs -– well, thankfully Louisiana had a hate-crime law.
The accused, after being convicted of placing combustibles with the intent to ignite, had ten years of jail time added to his ten year sentence for two counts of violating the Louisiana hate-crime law. Although, due to a glitch in the law, the sentence for the hate crimes was later overturned by the Louisiana Supreme court.
For many many years I have heard conservatives (like “Limbaugh” wishing to put drug users to death) advocate more severe punishment for drug dealing and drug usage to possibly solve, or reduce, the scourge of drugs, but not advocate enhanced punishment to curtail violence manifested by hate.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is on record requesting that the U. S. Supreme Court reverse the court’s decision striking down a Louisiana law which can execute a person convicted of raping a child. On the other hand, Jindal campaigned on a platform of repealing the Louisiana hate-crime law -– no doubt pandering to the right-wing.
As well, Sen. David Vitter, a long-time opponent of hate-crime laws, who most certainly opposed the expansion of the federal hate-crime law, has been strongly supportive of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Louisiana child rape law.
As there are rapes which are more heinous, there are acts of violence, involving hate, such as attempting to set an auto ablaze with a three year old African-American child strapped, and crying, in the vehicle, that are more heinous and to claim otherwise -- as Jindal and Vitter have -- I say, you are a hypocrite pandering to the religious zealots.
David C. Bellinger
(404) 762-8779
Atlanta, GA
E-mail address: davidc53@juno.com
Labels: Flaming Liberal
3 Comments:
This is not a compelling argument. The "the South is so irredeemably racist that it needs federal intervention" trope is outdated and demeaning to our region. There's no sign that southern states fail to prosecute violent crime regardless of motive; quite the opposite, in fact.
As for the idea that some crimes are so heinous that they deserve greater punishment, I wholeheartedly agree, and current laws generally allow discretion for that. However, the fact that some kind of racial bias was a motive doesn't make the crime itself worse. The comparison to terrorism is inapt -- there the intent to terrorize is an element of the offense. In fact, if it could be proven that a person was committing crimes with an intent to spark fear in a minority population, that could be prosecuted as domestic terrorism. It fits the elements of the statute.
Thus, the reason why hate crimes laws are made is not because crimes involving certain types of bias are always *actually intended* to intimidate or coerce, but because they *may* have that effect. However, this is true of all crime. If I hear that muggers are going around mugging and assaulting people dressed up in business clothes, I feel intimidated and more circumspect about going to work every day. In the same way, every rapist terrorizes women. The mugger might hate rich guys, and the rapist may be a misogynist, but he isn't a domestic terrorist per se.
Accordingly, the plain goal of hate crime laws is to punish the motive. Hate and bias are certainly bad motives, and I won't defend them. However, we don't normally punish based on motive, but on intent. With terrorism, there is the intent to terrorize. However, we don't presume to say that where the motive for terrorism is, say, opposition to abortion, that the punishment should be lighter than if the motivation was, say, Islamic radicalism. With the exception of hate crime laws, that's how our system works.
Punishing motives is highly dubious. Rather than deterring actions you're trying to deter a type of thinking. You're saying that the man who stabs someone to death over $5 is somehow better than the guy who stabs someone to death based on racial animus, and on top of that you require the state to actually establish motive as an element of the offense. Intent is already sometimes difficult to establish -- motive is even harder.
And then you get into favoring certain classes of people over others. Hate crimes laws don't simply say "any crime motivated by bias" -- they specify the types of bias that are subject to the law and exclude all others. So race hate might be in, while class hate might be out. Hence, Thurston Howell, III can go around murdering the hoi polloi and only be subject to regular criminal statutes, while David Duke on a racist bender gets the book thrown at him under hate crime laws.
Long story short -- Hate crime laws are a mess and, frankly, are stupid.
While I appreciate the "long story short" recap, Owen, I am flattered and honored that you will present such extended arguments in this humble forum. Your comments are always welcome here, and provide good friction.
Like I tend to say: no friction, no thought.
And your point about the dubious nature of punishing (some) motives is compelling. I've heard it before, but I haven't heard a great counterargument to it.
Thanks for the kudos, oyster.
I've never heard a good counterargument either; that's a large part of why I'm always trying to solicit one.
