Dammit, who reminded Bush that he had a veto? Goodness knows that he's completely forgotten about it for most of the rest of his presidency.

Yup. Apparently it's "infringing on free speech" to make it illegal to beat/burn/batter/maim someone because they are a female or homosexual. Yeah. Sure don't want to live in a society with THOSE kids of laws.

On the bright side, at least assassination isn't a hate crime, either. [Dear Federal Agents: I'M KIDDING.]

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

O rly? Yet they'll argue until they're red in the face for and, consequently sign into law, the "unborn victims of violence" act?

Twats.

Canada already added protection for sexual orientation under our hate crimes laws in 2003. Sex (gender) has been protected as long as we've had hate crimes laws, along with religion, ethnic/racial background, language, age, and mental/physical disability. We also have hate speech legislation protecting the same groups.

I'm always shocked when I find out that the US doesn't offer similar protections.

Bush vetoing this is not really bad news, it is expected news. Though it is bad.

This nut will do nothing unless it serves him and his interests.

Whomever ends up in the WH after Georgie will get writers cramp signing all the legislation that Bush rejected for no apparent good reason.

didn't you forget guys... women, gays and lesbians (I guess they would be in the catagory of lesbian though) aren't real people. We are just problems that need to be managed. Ugh, this president makes me sick. Why has't he been impeached, or at least investigated?

social conservatives...say the bill threatens the right to express moral opposition to homosexuality and singles out groups of citizens for special protection.

Saying "I morally object to homosexuality" is not a hate crime. Taking a baseball bat to the head of a "faggot" is. And you don't mave a right to do that to anyone, regardless of what "group" they're in. So really homo-haters, you've nothing to worry about unless you intend to "morally object" to teh gays by breaking other, already-existing laws like the ones against murder or assault--at which point your stance of "moral superiority" pretty much gets shot all to hell, doesn't it?

“no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.�

I'm sure if there had been, say, numerous cases in which a gay person was beaten and/or murdered solely because they were gay, they'd be all for it. Oh, wait...

It also noted that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.

Unless of course they happen to be gay or female cops, soldiers or senior citizens, in which case they would be protected by this law. The only ones who wouldn't would be the straight white male cops, soldiers, or senior citizens. And hey, we can pass legislation to protect straight white males, too, if we can produce evidence of them getting attacked or killed solely for being straight, male and white.

What's most amusing about the "special status" defense is that it completely ignores the fact that when someone commits a crime against someone because they think they're gay, it doesn't actually mean they are. This law would also protect straight people who are assaulted by homophobes who decided they looked a little too "gay"--which happens a lot more than these morons seem to think it does.

“Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all,� said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim.�

"First they say we can't lynch those damn uppity ******s, and now they're saying we can't whup a little swishy ******'s ass, either? There's just no justice anymore, I tells ya!" [/extreme snark]

But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.� If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, “you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'�

Please see above, first paragraph of my comment, Mr. D! You can say whatever your heart desires about teh dirty faggots or their likely destination in the afterlife. You just can't assault or murder them. Which I'm pretty sure the 10 Commandments forbid anyway. So there you go! You wouldn't want to break those laws, would you? Cause I'm pretty sure God wrote them...

Oh, shoot, I'm outta time.
Later!

But we have to remember that women and gays and lesbians aren't real people... just problems that have to be managed... can't the legislative branch overturn his veto if they vote on it and get 2/3rds.
I don't know, this is just disappointing.

heaven forbid we provide better protection for women (from their husbands (if they are batterers)) than we would for animals...

because after all, what is more important to the government than reinforcing heteronormativity and gender roles to keep (everyone but straight white males) in their place?

sorry about the double post... stupid internet

Just like SDstuck said, this is expected of Bush.

::Sigh:: Once again, I'm disappointed by our political leaders. You have to wonder how we get suck bigots to run our country. (which is supposed to be "free")

Not trying to cause trouble here, but why do we need laws that make illegal the intent of acts that are already illegal? If I were to kill some random person, does it really matter why? What makes some forms of murder worse than others?

Conceding that there are a lot of shitty things that happen out there, and women and minorities get more than their fare share (is it that it happens more often or that too often nothing is done about it, or both), I generally don't care for hate crime legislation. I tend to think we should actually enforce the laws already on the books. I hope that doesn't sound indifferent to people's situations because it isn't intended to.

If someone has a really compelling argument for hate crime legislation, I'd be grateful to read it.

"there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

what the hell? honestly.

bear,

Because spray-painting a building is vandalism. Spray-painting swastikas on a synagogue, on the other hand, is a hate crime.

Here is I think the reason for hate crime legislation:

It makes clear there is a trend there. A trend that results in /more/ crime because of an attitude held by certain members of society. By acknowledging that, acknowledging it as a not uncommon motive for crime, it helps you focus on it and focus on trying to eradicate it. You want to deal justice after a crime, but you are also acknowledging that a problem needs to be fixed at its source.

With hate crimes often the victim does not know the perpetrator. With other sorts of crimes, this is less often the case, and often motivations may be more personal. Just my guess on the reasoning...

Person A kills someone because he doesn't like the way they drink their soup.

Person B kills someone because he doesn't like who they screw.

Why is B's crime worse than A's?

It may not necessarily be worse, but then, the motivation of killing someone because you don't like the way they drink their soup is not very common. You can't really classify something unless there are a lot of them.

On the other hand, we've got wide societal forces working to oppress people who screw certain people. And crimes against people for those reasons are common enough that you can predict they will happen a certain amount

Noname, because, amoungst other reasons, person B's crime negatively impacts an entire group of citizens. Person A's doesn't.

I think just like any other kind of crime legislation, what the law-makers want is to send a signal to the public that these sorts of crimes are unacceptable

noname, I think you're missing the bigger problem here. Unless you believe that there should be no hate crimes bill at all, then why shouldn't gender and sexual orientation be added to the existing legislation? The point of such legislation can and should have implications for the wider society. Law can aid in instituting such changes. By saying that crimes against a particular minority and/or oppressed group is WRONG and PUNISHABLE, this law is sending out the message that any discriminatory behavior based on any of these labels (gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.) is unacceptable.

But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.� If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, “you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'�

Holy fuck. How is HE reading the Bible??????

Also, I don't know the history of the legislation, so this is sort of like another speculation, BUT:

If you lived in the deep south, then for much of the history blacks were not considered human and equal to a white man under the laws. Changing the constitution to say minorities are also humans with equal rights was apparently not enough, because blacks were targeted for crimes long after that, and courts couldn't be relied upon to deal justice. The Hate Crime Act is a much more explicit way of saying something law-makers who wrote the Equal Rights Act probably intended anyway.

All of that could be said of women too. Women still don't have explicit Equal Rights anywhere.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevelence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing differnt groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevelence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing differnt groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

Laws are not only about punishing those who break them; they are also about trying to prevent the criminal behavior from occuring in the first place, and showing what a given society does and does not find acceptable. Hate crime legislation shows not only that society does not tolerate violence in general, but that it also does not tolerate the violent message that is inherent in any kind of prejudice. I also think that hate crimes are among the most preventable, because even if they are not calculated consciously over a period of time, they are built up to through years of prejudiced hatred that could be avoided by, among other methods, showing that society does not, under any circumstances, tolerate those kinds of view points. And I think that they are two vastly different kind of crimes, to kill a gay person because who don't like him walking around being all "faggy" and killing a person who happens to be gay because he stole your money. In the second instance, a person is only at risk for associating with someone mentally unstable (and still, of course, does not deserve to be murdered). In the first instance, a person is at risk due to his mere existence, and that makes for a far scarier society.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevalence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing different groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/11/hate-crimes-big-picture.html

The point of bias motivated crimes is to recognize the fact that when someone is assaulted or killed because he was part of group A, the purpose is not merely to hurt that person but to attack group A as a whole, to show them who is boss, to terrorize them into submission and to motivate them to get out of the community. This is why these crimes necessitate an harsher sentence than if that person had been attacked at random.

During the time that I was writing my response to "why are hate crimes worse," everyone else wrote excellent, diverse explanations . . . I think that they're ALL great so far.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevalence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing different groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

The funny thing is that in the New York Times article, Bush calls the bill "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable." I would love to hear why he thinks that the Patriot Act doesn't fall under that description. Because obviously reading my emails is more important than protecting me from violence. Good ol' conservatives.

The funny thing is that in the New York Times article, Bush calls the bill "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable." I would love to hear why he thinks that the Patriot Act doesn't fall under that description. Because obviously reading my emails is more important than protecting me from violence. Good ol' conservatives.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevalence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing different groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevalence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing different groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

Also, bear, hate crimes ARE fundamentally different from other sorts of violent crime. Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevalence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. These sorts of crimes do not merely harm those physically killed or assaulted. They rip apart the fiber and unity of a community, polarizing different groups within that community, literally terrorizing other members of the hated group. These crimes are more often than not committed in a mob mentality toward unknown victims, and almost always are perpetrated by a group of men (yes, men) upon an individual or smaller group of individuals.

It makes me angry to hear that a friend was held up or beat up as part of a robbery. But I have never been angrier than when I heard that my friend was beat up in my peace-loving gay-mecca neighborhood after leaving my building's Pride Parade party. His front tooth was knocked out and his rib was broken. The perpetrators (who were caught, thank goodness, though my friend chose not to press charges), were a group of 4 assholes who came to the neighborhood on that day because they were disgusted that all these fags would flaunt their pride in their disgusting lifestyles.

"Terrorism" is a catch-phrase in this country right now, and our illustrious president has told us it will not be tolerated, and has even declared his war on it. Well, Mr. President, hate crime IS terrorism, born and bred right here in the good ol' USA. This legislation will acknowledge that, and punish most harshly the most senseless violent crimes.

Oh my gosh guys sorry. I've been trying to get that message through for over an hour now...

Jessica -- could you please delete the extras?

The funny thing is that in the New York Times article, Bush calls the bill "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable." I would love to hear why he thinks that the Patriot Act doesn't fall under that description. Because obviously reading my emails is more important than protecting me from violence. Good ol' conservatives.

The whole point of the hate crime legislation is to make hate crimes committed against homosexuals and women federal offences which would mean more prison time, no voting rights anywhere ever again, and opening to sue the organization behind the hate crime in federal court. The last item is what the conservatives dislike the most. Guys like Pastor Fred (that kook who runs the "god hates fags" and "god hates America" web sites) could then get sued for every penny their organizations have once they are linked to a hate crimes against abortion clinics or homosexuals. Civil lawyers have pretty much decimated the KKK and various skinhead groups by going after their money, instead of trying to get them convicted of violent crimes.

Personally I would like to see every hate mongering conservative stripped of every financial resource they got.

Thanks for the arguments. I don't know that I am convinced that hate crime legislation is necessary, but I do appreciate and respect the points of view (I think BlackBloc was especially compelling - I didn't finish reading the link, but what I saw was interesting and hope to go back and finish it).

By the way, if I believed in hate crime legislation in general, I would definitely be for this one in particular.

I'm not sure I'm 100% on hate crime legislation (hi, noname! :), but if we ARE going to have it, it should be applied to gender and sex-orientation as well as race.

I really hate James Dobson. My most vivid memory of him on TV when I was a teenager was of him gushing that YES, of COURSE John Kennedy went to heaven. Adultery? Not a problem. Being teh gay? Burn in hell.

Good ripping, Vervain, as always.

On a side note, I can't WAIT to see the history books in a few years.

"List of Bush vetoes:
1. Stem Cell Research
2. Iraq timetable
3. Gender-fair hate legislation."

See a pattern?

bear, another thing is that intent does matter; ALOT, in our criminal justice system. That's why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, or negligent homicide. Intent is part of every crime definition. This legislation doesn't invent this idea- it simply enforces additional penalty for intending to harm someone because of gender or sexual orientation. For all the "terrorizing a group" reasons stated above by other brilliant posters.

Noname, I think you're missing the bigger problem here. Unless you believe that there should be no hate crimes bill at all, then why shouldn't gender and sexual orientation be added to the existing legislation? - String_Bean_Jen

I believe that there should be no hate crimes bill at all.

Think about why hate crime legislation was necessary in the first place: it came from the prevelence of lynchings of those who had the audacity to be born black. - roro80

I did a quick search, and the first hate crimes legislation I found was passed in 2000 (if there were earlier laws passed, please let me know). Was the Hate Crimes Act of 2000 a reaction to the prevalence of lynching in the 90's?

The point of bias motivated crimes is to recognize the fact that when someone is assaulted or killed because he was part of group A, the purpose is not merely to hurt that person but to attack group A as a whole, to show them who is boss, to terrorize them into submission and to motivate them to get out of the community. This is why these crimes necessitate an harsher sentence than if that person had been attacked at random. – BlackBloc

So, if person B kills or assaults person A, and person A identifies with a group, person B has attacked that group? This is a logical fallacy, I think.

Noname: That isn't what BlackBloc was saying, and therefore unnecessary. But I do fear that overzealous prosecutors could argue along those lines.

Noname - it is not a logical fallacy.
If you understand that identifying/belonging to a certain group makes it more likely that you will be targeted, members of that group are likely to be fearful.
Just as news of a stranger-rape in their neighbourhood will make women afraid to go out alone, a gay-bashing has the effect of frightening people who identify as gay.
It's a way of dominating a group you hate.

Ranter - I am happy to say I agree with everything you said in this post.
Yay for finding common ground!

You all have really explained the federal aspect of the bill very well; thank you!

I agree with many posts here regarding the veto, which is not surprising -- mainly because unless one is a heterosexual conservative in this country, protection is not guaranteed.

The reason?

Republicans -- who have been the most outspoken on the bill's passage -- feel it will go against freedom of speech and the freedom to express one's religion.

Ok, so it is not okay to beat the crap out of someone based on their skin color, but it is okay to beat the crap out of someone who breaks traditional gender roles, or represents a sexual orientation other than straight? This is ludicrous.

More, since when did violent attacks count as freedom of speech?

I was thinking about why I don't agree with hate crimes legislation, and my gut response was that motive shouldn’t be a factor in judging a crime. This reeks of thought crime legislation. Of course, I now realize that self defense excuses what would otherwise be called a murder, and self defense is clearly a function of motive.

If a motive can clear one of a crime, why can’t it make that crime more serious? Something still doesn’t feel right to me about this (self defense is not usually considered a mitigating factor in a murder, rather an instance of self defense is not called murder at all), but obviously I need to reconsider the issue before commenting further.

Noname

If person C is responsible for encouraging person B to kill or hurt random person A, only because random person A is a homosexual or a woman, then I want person C and the organization he represents to be sued for every penny they got.

Noname - it is not a logical fallacy.
If you understand that identifying/belonging to a certain group makes it more likely that you will be targeted, members of that group are likely to be fearful.
Just as news of a stranger-rape in their neighbourhood will make women afraid to go out alone, a gay-bashing has the effect of frightening people who identify as gay.
It's a way of dominating a group you hate. – Anorak

All crime can create fear of more crime, so I am not sure I understand the significance of what you are saying. A drunk driver is arrested for the act of driving drunk, not for subsequently making other motorists in his area fear their streets. Anyway, like I said, I have some thinking to do on the subject.

A drunk driver's victim is random. Being killed by a drunk driver is not normally attributed to the victim's gender/sexuality/whathaveyou. Being killed BECAUSE you are gay/a woman/ a muslim/whathaveyou is different because the victim is targeted due to something they can't change - their identity. This in turn engenders fear in the target's identity group. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Ranter - 'This is right because it is what I want' is not a very good argument.

I'm out. I'll check in tomorrow. Maybe then I will have some clue as to where I really stand on this issue (and more importantly why).

If a motive can clear one of a crime, why can’t it make that crime more serious? Something still doesn’t feel right to me about this (self defense is not usually considered a mitigating factor in a murder, rather an instance of self defense is not called murder at all), but obviously I need to reconsider the issue before commenting further.

noname, just to possibly help that thinking a little further: there are areas where motivation, other than the biases covered by hate crimes, can make an offense worse.

We can still use the murder example. In general, killing someone is criminal. If you are found to have killed someone, the default conclusion is that you've committed a crime (as noted, you can absolve yourself of responsibility by demonstrating an appropriate motive such as self-defense). You've further committed a worse crime if your killing of the person was intentional, rather than negligent (this intention must be proven separately from the fact of having killed someone, so it counts as an "extra" that makes the crime of taking a life more punishable). Even further than that, you could have premeditated the crime, purchased a gun six weeks ago in anticipation of it, and hired someone to help you cover it up. This additional motive (intentional killing with premeditation) makes it so criminal that in some states you yourself may even be killed for it.

So, it does in fact already go both ways in the criminal context.

nonmame
The difference between a hate crime and a regular crime is that the crime is committed due to the person's race/gender/orientation. That means that anyone who identifies with that population must deal with the realization that there are individuals out there that will hurt/kill them because of that fact.
A drunk driver does not get on the road with the intention of hurting or killing anyone. Someone that goes to a gay club with the intention of hurting a gay man or woman has a completely different mindset and a more dangerous one. They are not hurting out of reckless nor are they targeting a specific individual. They are targeting a group of people and that individual symoblizes that group. The view the individual as someone who represents the lifestyle or belief that they despise.

If you had brown hair and someone was out there beating up people based on the fact that they had brown hair it would effect you in that you knew that now you were a potential victim based on something you have no control over.

There are two coherent positions to take on the question of hate crime laws.

You can say that all crimes ought to be judged based on the specifics of the crime, rather than appeal to questions of 'context'. Who did what to whom and how?

Or you can say that 'context' is important in the definition of the crime. Who did what to whom, how, and WHY?

In the US, we have hate crime laws framed in terms of some minority groups, identified by race, gender, religion, disability, etc. Crimes become hate crimes when the 'why' is all about the identification of the victim(s) with one or another minority group.

What's utterly incoherent is to say that some minority groups are deserving of protection, and some aren't. Well, mebbe not incoherent. The only way to see how this makes sense is to say that what characterizes the minority actually makes them sub-human.

I think this last is the position a lot of social conservatives (ie. bigots) take.

Le sigh. Only 2 more years.

Hi. Lots of thoughtful comments already. I haven't thought very directly about this area of the law, but Chris Hedges has some interesting things to say about the connection between hate speech and violence in his new book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

One of his arguments is that liberals have bowed too glibly to the idea of "tolerance" meaning they cannot challenge other peoples' right to speak any idea they choose. (I am simplifying here.) He distinguishes between respecting peoples beliefs, and drawing the line when that belief includes arguing that you (feminist, black, jewish, homosexual, etc.) should be erased from the human community (note: he is a Christian, but I believe his message can be a universal one for all of us who oppose fundamentalism):

I do not deny the right of Christian radicals to be, to believe and worship as they choose. But I will not engage in a dialogue with those who deny my right to be, who delegitimize my faith and denounce my struggle before God as worthless. All dialogue must include respect and tolerance for the beliefs, worth and dignity of others, including those outside the nation and the faith. When this is denied, this clash of ideologies ceases to be merely a difference of opinion and becomes a fight for survival. . . . Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice (page 207).

I think other posters have said this, but to make it crystal clear:

If you rob someone who is black because she looks like she has a lot of money, that is not a hate crime. Even if you shoot a black person because that person said something rude to you, that is not a hate crime.

If you shoot someone who appears to be black because you think black people should not be allowed to live in your neighborhood, that is a hate crime.

In order to be convicted of a hate crime, there has to be some evidence that you intended to target that person because of her membership in a particular social category. I can't remember who makes the determination (judge or jury) or what the standard of proof is, but there has to be some indication that you were at least partially motivated by hate for a group of people.

Right now, if you substitute "gay" for "black" in my third paragraph above, there is no enhanced sentence for your crime. This bill seeks to rectify that.

I guess we can safely assume that nomane wants person C to be able to continue to hate monger without consequences. Funny that he left after I mentioned suing hate mongers.

Ranter, I don't think that's fair. I've completely agreed with all you comments, but it seems like noname is making a good faith effort. Saying he/she supports hate-mongers because they don't have a completely defined position on this seems a little harsh.

Noname has made it clear that her/his mind on this issue is not made up. Noname's last point was only that just because you or I want someone punished for their motives does not make it a good law or a convincing argument for someone who is skeptical.

Why bother arguing semantics? Why not just get to the underlining issue. Noname didn't even want to give his opinion of what consequences hate mongers should suffer for their ill deeds. The real issue isn't about legislation, but rather about putting hate mongers out of business.

I am ready for making hate mongering economically non-viable.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but I kind of take Ranter's side on this one. The positioin noname took on the Duke case would be consistent with the theory that noname is ambivalent on the typical "very liberal" stance on racial/minority questions (that our gov't has the obligation to try and right historical wrongs, by providing special sorts of protection for specific groups of people if necessary).

I wasn't even aware of the sueing business, Ranter. That's fascinating, and makes the Hate Crime Act so much easier to explain, in my mind.

When it comes right down to it, the whole human civilization is completely ruled by the amount profit that can be made off of something (Bush would have decided to invade Iraq if there was no oil). If spreading hate was expensive with no potential to make money, no one would spread hate. Fucus On The Family spreads a lot of hate, so you can see why they are against the hate crime legislation.

yeah, I know I've seen studies cited where men who hold conservative beliefs about traditional gender roles are more likely to be rapists. What if a correlation was found between men who are Southern Baptists and men who commit violence against women? What if they had to sue the Southern Baptist Convention? hahahahahaha

I would love it, personally. But I'm pretty sure a number of politicians identify as S. Baptist.

yeah, I know I've seen studies cited where men who hold conservative beliefs about traditional gender roles are more likely to be rapists. What if a correlation was found between men who are Southern Baptists and men who commit violence against women? What if they had to sue the Southern Baptist Convention? hahahahahaha

I would love it, personally. But I'm pretty sure a number of politicians identify as S. Baptist.

Ranter: it you read noname's final comments, it looks like she/he was considering the arguments posted here, and that they could possibly sway her/him to think differently. I thought that was the purpose here. Chastising honest discussion and thought doesn't benefit your cause.

Someone had a generic hypothetical earlier about group C telling person B to kill A in a hate crime, and group C should be responsible. Here is one that scares me:

Take a group like the Minutemen, who say they want to protect our borders. I don't know if it is their sole motivation, but for arguments sake, let's say it is. Let's say they don't have any prejudice against Mexicans, but want to have Mexicans who want to come to this country do so legally; and hate it when they do so illegally. Let's say that is the sole reason for their existence.

Now Jim Bob, from east Texas, hates Mexicans. He joins the Minutemen because he wants to keep them out of this country. He is patrolling the border and shoots a Mexican who is crossing, just because he doesn't like them and doesn't want them here.

Now let's say the Minutemen might have thought Jim Bob was a bit off, but truly didn't know the extent of his beliefs and never thought he would do such a thing. Should the Minutemen be prosecuted for hate crimes?

If you said yes, you are the ones who scare the conservatives on free speech issues in relation to hate crimes. I think there is a slippery slope that could develop if someone wanted to go after a group. On the flip side, there are groups that are reckless and irresponsible and need to be prosecuted. The part that scares me is who decides and is it always done fairly?

For the record, I am not a supporter of the Minutemen. I believe in a guest worker system and helping those who are already here. I was just using that as an example.

I do like this thread and appreciate the comments. It really is making me think about this issue.

"Now let's say the Minutemen might have thought Jim Bob was a bit off, but truly didn't know the extent of his beliefs and never thought he would do such a thing. Should the Minutemen be prosecuted for hate crimes?"

I think an organization would be prosecuted at such point as a trend appears (i.e. a lot of its members are found guilty of hate crimes). Because honestly, no organization in the U.S. is probably going to come out and say it promotes violence. But there are certain ideologies that seem to often lead to it, in our country. And there may be certain networks of people within organizations that promote violence, even if the organization doesn't officially in nice shiny writing (see: School of the Americas).

Sure it might be called something of a "preventative measure," and those are always debateable.

If the minutemen (or any other organization) wrote something or had spokesmen who promoted killing or harming illegal migrants based on their race, then yes I think it would be fair to be able to sue the minutemen as organization if one of their members committed a hate crime against illegal migrants.

If the minutemen (or any other organization) wrote something or had spokesmen who promoted killing or harming illegal migrants based on their race, then yes I think it would be fair to be able to sue the minutemen as organization if one of their members committed a hate crime against illegal migrants.

If the minutemen (or any other organization) wrote something or had spokesmen who promoted killing or harming illegal migrants based on their race, then yes I think it would be fair to be able to sue the minutemen as an organization if one of their members committed a hate crime against illegal migrants.

One important point to remember; the catholic church got sued recently for a lot money because of the injustices committed by some of their priests. Yes, if Southern Baptist ministers get convicted of carrying hate against homosexuals or women, then I think it would be fair to sue the Southern Baptist Church on behave of the hate crime victims.

Someone once said something that made it VERY clear to me. The arguement is that you can't punish someone for their intent, only the result of their actions.

If so, then why does the current legal system take in account differences in intent? This, after all is what the difference between Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter is. The law recognizes that planning a murder, murdering someone in an impulsive rage, and accidentally running down a person with a car is clearly different.

Essentially, we already DO legislate based on intent and motivation. When hate crime legislation was first introduced, the purpose was to single out those who had the intent to terrorize a specific group as opposed to murdering someone for a personal reason.

When people are killed and/or beaten in hate crimes, they are targeted specifically because of the minority group they are part of. More often than not, the killers do not know them personally. They are literally selecting a target towards which they can direct their hate.

They did it because they HATE what the person represents to them. They did it because they wanted to manipulate and control others of the same group. They are saying, "just because you are who you are, I might kill you".

Yeah, I gotta say, I consider myself a liberal Democrat but I don't get hate crime legislation.
Murder is already a crime. Beating someone up is a crime. I think encouraging someone to kill someone else is a crime too.
I appreciate the argument that hate crimes terrorize a community, be it a gay people, Ethiopians, whatever. But random crime terrorizes a community period. If a rich white guy gets knocked over and robbed, it scares the whole neighborhood, including rich white guys. That's what I think the crazies mean when they say this creates special privileges for some classes of people - indiscriminately mugging one person is a hate crime, indiscriminately mugging someone else isn't.
Then again, I think if we're going to have any hate crime legislation, rape should be prosecuted as a hate crime against women.

I don't get this kind of legislation. Every crime with premeditation is a hate crime, so why introduce special legislation to do this? If a someone commits a crime and one has proof of premeditation, they get a harsher sentence. This kind of legislation just puts certain groups over other groups, and in fact could set the standard higher for proof of premeditation. It's nice to imagine that we can legislate tolerance into being, but the fact is that these laws won't do much, and if anything they'll just foster resentment. We have laws already that stop assault, or murder, and these crimes are equally wrong when committed against anyone. No group is more equal than any other. If one can prove premeditation, the crime is worse. Plain and simple.

Can Bush really be any more of an asshole than he is now?

While I don't know that I support hate crimes legislation, serious props to whoever came up with the term "hate crimes" - it makes me feel like a bad person for questioning the need for anti-hate crime legislation.

RF's got it right. There's no way to win with this name. If it was called "Special Treatment" legislation, or something of that ilk, people could oppose it, but nobody wants to be "for hate crimes". As if any violent crime isn't a hate crime. Monopolizing words and twisting them to this sort of thing only breeds that kind of competition into one's foes, and before one knows it, it becomes more about the words than the ideas themselves.

DaveNJ, if you read the rest of this thread, you will see that many people here have already addressed your arguments in a range of diverse, interesting and compelling ways.

I agree with what LegallyBlondeez posted – not all violent crimes are hate crimes.

And as others pointed out you can commit a hate crime without committing physical violence to a person (cross-burning, racist grafitti).

Hate crimes are a greater cancer because history shows that mobs of people can be whipped into racist frenzies when hate crimes go unchecked. Nipping it in the bud is the best thing for everyone.

Sigh. This is just like the ERA and the 14th Amendment.

On a good legislative note, the House, Senate and WH are expected to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage from 5.15 to 7.25 very soon.

If you are against hate crime legislation, you are probably against it because you are either misinformed, or you really want your hate of a specific group of people not to suffer consequences. Designating a crime a hate crime gives the crime the distinction that the hate that motivated the act is also criminal. This distinction is made so that people convicted of hate crimes are punished not only for the violent act they committed, but also for acting upon the hate they were inspired to feel. If the hate that motivated the violent act is also a crime, then that makes the people who propagated or directly supported the offender also guilty, because they are responsible for the hate that inspired the crime. Groups like Focus on the Family hate gays and strong willed women (call them feminist), and they don't want to be held liable for violent acts against women or homosexuals made by people they support or propagate.

Hate groups like Focus on the Family don't want violence against homosexuals and women to be considered hate crimes, because they don't want to ever pay the price for the hate they spread.

I hope that what I just wrote inspires you to support hate crime legislation, because someday some distinctive characteristic of yours might make you a target of a hate group, and I want any group of individuals who targets you with hate to suffer huge consequences for encouraging others to hate you.

"If you are against hate crime legislation, you are probably against it because you are either misinformed, or you really want your hate of a specific group of people not to suffer consequences."

That there is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of well informed, not hateful sociopaths that oppose hate crime legislation. Perhaps they would be more willing to come out and play were you not impeaching their motives and intelligence.

"Designating a crime a hate crime gives the crime the distinction that the hate that motivated the act is also criminal."

The hate itself is not criminal. It's just not. Until you infringe on somebody else's rights, you are free to be the biggest nut ball whack job bigot you want. Nobody has to live inside your head, so you can hate to your cold black heart's content. It's the beauty of America, or something. It's so fundamental, so thoroughly obvious, that it didn't even make it into the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech? Yeah, that sounds good. Freedom of Thought? Well... duh.

"There are plenty of well informed, not hateful sociopaths that oppose hate crime legislation. Perhaps they would be more willing to come out and play were you not impeaching their motives and intelligence."

That line is so stupid it's not even worth responding too.

Ranter, hate is not a crime. Acting on that hate is, but you're right, hate crime legislation makes hate a crime, and it's not. I think hate is wrong, but it's not going to just stop because it has been made illegal. If anything, it will make it worse. That being said, hate is not illegal. It's reprehensible, but we can't police people's thoughts. We can use premeditation to determine the level of a crime, but being a bigot isn't criminal. Introducing this kind of legislation just opens up a legal precedent that can't be good in the long run. If we make somethought policing legal now, eventually it will all be legal.

"Every crime with premeditation is a hate crime, so why introduce special legislation to do this? If a someone commits a crime and one has proof of premeditation, they get a harsher sentence"

Actually, something came to me last night, when I was away from the feministing website. A lot of hate crimes may not be premeditated, in the sense that the criminal doesn't know what specific individual they are going to target, or how they're going to do it. They may just get inspired one day to beat up a representative from that group they also hate anyway, b/c of right time and right place, or feeling particularly hateful on a given day.

So, I think Hate Crimes might result in lighter sentences than I think they should under regular legislation. Hate Crime legislation recognizes hate for a general group of people as at least as bad as premeditation, and I'm not sure it always would be otherwise.

"it's not going to just stop because it has been made illegal. If anything, it will make it worse. "

I seriously question that reasoning. For the sake of consistancy, would you like to argue that this is what happens with everything made illegal? ...

Until you infringe on somebody else's rights, you are free to be the biggest nut ball whack job bigot you want.

My understanding of hate crime legislation is that is doesn't legislate against people's thoughts. What it does do is recognize that bigotry doesn't happen in a vacuum. You don't become a racist out of the blue, or suddenly feel homophobic, without a backdrop of people, cultural narratives, organizations, encouraging you to see the world in a certain way, and blame those feelings of fear, powerlessness, rage, you are feeling on a group of people because of an arbitrary characteristic (religion, color of skin, sexual orientation, sex).

Hate crime legislation challenges us to make a connection between hate speech and hateful actions. The complicated reality is that cultivating a climate of racism or homophobia DOES "infringe on somebody else's rights." Recognizing the impact speech has, and asking people and organizations to stand responsible once that speech has led to violence doesn't seem completely beyond the pale to me, and it doesn't seem like an automatic infringement of people's freedom of expression.

However, I can understand the line is fuzzy and I appreciate the debate. It's helping me think more deeply about this.

"indiscriminately mugging one person is a hate crime, indiscriminately mugging someone else isn't."
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of "hate crime" here. If you "indiscriminately" mug someone, you are NOT committing a hate crime, regardless of what group they may or may not belong to. You're being indiscriminate in your choice of victim. A hate crime is precisely the opposite--you're deliberately choosing to victimize someone solely based on their membership (or perceived membership) in a specific group.

To clarify:
Scenario A: You beat up a man (who happens to be gay) because he said something about your mother.
Scenario B: You beat up a man (who happens to be gay) because he's a dirty faggot who needs to be taught a lesson.

Scenario A is not a hate crime. Scenario B is.
This is not about getting slapped with an additional punishment just because the person you committed a crime against happens to be a member of a specific group. It's about punishing people who commit a crime against someone specifically because they perceive them to be a member of a group.
In scenario A, you are attacking an individual in response to his own actions. In scenario B, you are using the individual to attack the group as a whole.

"The hate itself is not criminal."
Indeed it is not. You can hate people all you want, for whatever reason. There is no such thing as "thought crime" because, gosh, no one actually knows what another person is thinking. Imagine that! The only way anyone can be aware of your thoughts is if you choose to express them verbally--in which case there's this thingy we have called freedom of speech. So you have a right to hate whomever you want, and even to say so out loud. However, you do not have a right to commit a crime against someone for no other reason than because you hate the group to which they belong.
That is the definition of a hate crime, and part of why hate crimes merit additional punishment in my mind is because (using Scenario B again) any gay man (or even any straight man the attacker thinks is gay) could take the place the victim. This significantly widens the pool of potential victims for the person committing the assault, and makes additional or repeat offenses a lot more likely to occur. The whole point of laws is to minimize the frequency of occurrence and number of victims--that's why we put criminals in jail, and why we punish repeat offenders more harshly.

I could also go into the other half of it, addressing how failing to punish the behavior in addition to the original crime demonstrates tacit approval of it, which both encourages like-minded people to do the same, and terrorizes the potential victims, but other commenters have already abundantly covered that in this thread.

(I decided to post this separately because it's something of a digression, really.)

“Then again, I think if we're going to have any hate crime legislation, rape should be prosecuted as a hate crime against women.�

I’ve heard this suggested before, and I'm still ambivalent about it, personally. I don't think every rapist who rapes a woman does so as a means of punishing or threatening all women, but I do think our media and society use the threat of rape to contain and control women, which is in line with the usual intent of hate crimes--to teach the group as a whole, better watch your step, you might be next. So is rape a hate crime? I think each rape that's publicized (and the abundance of victim-blaming, alter-your-behavior-or-else "rape prevention" articles) is used toward that end, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the individual rapist, so convicting him of a hate crime seems unjust—you may be punishing him for actions taken by others, namely the use of his crime as a vehicle to advance their own agenda. Rape is part of a very tangled section of our societal web, and it’s difficult to readily distinguish cause and effect. Do men rape women to punish them for being women? Some probably do. But do they do so consciously, or just because they've been raised in a culture that has handed them a definition of "normal" sex that is in fact a script for rape, or because the society they live in devalues women in general? Rape is tricky as a hate crime because it's just so embedded in our culture and in sexism that it becomes difficult to determine where cultural “values� end and true hateful intent begins.

very eloquent sum-up Vervain

"but I do think our media and society use the threat of rape to contain and control women"

Maybe, to an extent. But I think the reality of rape and sexual harassment controls women aplenty all on its own. Most women have either been sexually assaulted or has a friend who has been.

I think in order to argue that rape is not a crime against a woman for being female, you have to argue that the man could have as easily raped a man instead. I know rape of men by men is not uncommon, but it's not as common as rape of women by men, and while someone who rapes once is likely to do it again, I'm not sure that your average raper of women also tends to rape men. I think anything you can do to give a harsher penalty to rape than is currently usually given is good.

"Rape is tricky as a hate crime because it's just so embedded in our culture and in sexism that it becomes difficult to determine where cultural “values� end and true hateful intent begins."

If you have "cultural values" that are perpetuating rape and other violence against women, don't you think those "values" need to be recognized for what they are? (i.e. hate for women)

"very eloquent sum-up Vervain"

I think Vervain may be male, because I recognize the name from another site. If I'm right I don't think it totally invalidatas his viewpoint, but it makes me think he may not be the expert on women's experience and what causes women to feel terror. Even if I'm wrong, I stand by what I said above about the reality of the frequency of rape being the primary threat to women.

Since the mid-nineties, after the death of Matthew Shephard, everyone has been so up-in-arms about creating/preventing hate crime legislation, but last night I was checking out the votes of various Democrats, and so many had proudly posted their vote on their website, which means that they aren't afraid to admit to the American people that they don't support hate or hate crimes. Which, to me, says that maybe Americans are finally seeing the bigger picture and aren't so afraid anymore, so we don't have to be afraid to be honest with them. Our President is behind the times, and out of touch with Americans, but I just can't wait to see what our new Democratic president will do.

Unfortunately, that means two more years that hate crimes are not punishable as a special and specific offense.

I lean more towards californianna and DaveNJ17 on this issue. I have often felt like hate crime legislation was tacked on as a cheap way to raise prison sentences.

If someone spends three weeks planning to kill their mother-in-law because they hate her cooking, why should they go to jail for less time than someone who spends three weeks planning to kill her because she's asian or a lesbian or a wiccan? Both crimes were motivied by hate.

I'm not convinced by the "but the community is terrorized". We don't augment prison sentences based on how a community reacts. If we DID, then pedophiles who kill rich white girls would go to jail a lot longer than pedophiles who kill poor black girls, because - let's face it - the white girl is publicized more and the community is more noticably frightened afterwards.

IMHO, just as justice should be blind with regards to the defendant's race/religion/creed, so should it be with regards to victim.

And, thank you, Ranter, for pointing out that because I don't support hate crime legislation, I am either "misinformed" or a bigot who wants to murder with impunity.

And, as I mentioned before, I don't like hate crime legislation, but if we're going to have it, it should apply to all groups. It's insane to exclude sex-orientation and gender without SOME kind of reason other than a "free speech" cop-out that makes for a good sound-bite but is otherwise meaningless.

While I am kind of 50/50 with the views expressed with the writers and readers here, I cant see a problem with this legislation.

Its about violent crime. Violent crime is a problem. Violent or hate crimes are not victemless like smoking marijuana, or bridge diving. The victims are clear, present, and cannot be argued or debated at all.

I dont see a problem with further criminalizing violent crimes. If a violent action is brought on based racism, sexism etc, why should it not be judged harsher than a crime of passion, or temporary insanity?

If you cannot control prejudices, you do not belong in society or any part there of. (voting, etc)

Society needs to continually evolve to higher standards, till some day (gasp) rape, sexism, hate, domestic abuse, and random acts of violence are looked down upon with the same hatred as pedophilia. (kind makes a non-related point tho - the only people who object seem to be.. well nm, fill the egregiously sterotypical blanks in)

Its the natural way for society to move, not taking steps back. Bush should be ashamed of his veto history, and any of supporters need to seriously re-evaluate their lives and stances on important issues.

I dont believe rape should just be classified as a hate crime. Per the case, if it is out of a serious hatred for women, sure. But many rapists suffer from mental and emotional shortcomings, and should be punished accordingly.

Someone replace Bush already, his arrogance and disregard for people as whole is thoroughly and completely disgusting on every front.

I think Vervain may be male, because I recognize the name from another site. If I'm right I don't think it totally invalidatas his viewpoint, but it makes me think he may not be the expert on women's experience and what causes women to feel terror. Even if I'm wrong, I stand by what I said above about the reality of the frequency of rape being the primary threat to women.

Nina, you probably didn't mean it this way, but this sounds an awful lot like "men aren't allowed to have opinions on rape". Even if Vervain IS male (and I don't think that's the case), you've completely dismissed the possibility that "he" may have been raped, or his sister/mother/wife. "His" viewpoint toward rape is just as valid as yours.

For what it is worth, I am a rape victim and I don't think all rapes are motivated by hate. My boyfriend in college didn't rape me because he hated women, he raped me because he wanted sex and he got tired of me saying no. So... he just did it. Does that make it any less horrible? Hell no! But it does mean that to tack on a "hate crime" name to all rapes is incorrect.

And if we're going to do "after the fact" definitions (i.e., all rapes are hate crime because hate is a prerequisite for rape), then let's do away with the hate crime nonsense in general and just honestly come out and support longer prison sentences for rape, something that I'm a huge advocate for.

My issue with hate crime legislation is: how do you prove it? In other words, hate crime IS related to thought! If you THINK gays are nasty vermin, then you THINK you should kill them. But, how can you prove hate? It is VERY hard to make a hate crime charge stick. Also, I think prosecutors are more willing to charge the dominant race/gender with a hate crime then if the case was the other way around. There are a good number of cases where black men kill white people simply because they are white--these cases are rarely presented as hate crimes. If a gay person kills a straight person because they are tired of straight people's abuse, are they committing a hate crime? If a woman kills a man because men have always been brutal to her, is she committing a hate crime? Hate crime legislation only seems to work when the victim is a "minority".

Law Fairy – I get where you are coming from, but I think you are using ‘intent’ and ‘motive’ interchangeably, when they are in fact different concepts.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the difference between first and second degree murder is intent, not motive.

how do you prove it?

You're strolling hand-in-hand with your boyfriend one evening. You pause to kiss in the romantic moonlight. Three drunken teenage boys burst out of a passing car carrying tire irons and shouting "Kill the fucking faggots!" and the like. They beat the crap out of you and your boyfriend.

How is that hard to demonstrate?

I see the problems with hate-crime legislation, but I'm not sure it criminalizes thought in a way that the law hadn't before. The law provides different penalties for premeditated crimes and spur-of-the-moment onces. Premeditating the crime--that is, thinking it through before committing it--makes the crime worse. Does that mean that it's illegal to think or fantasize about committing a crime? No. The problem only kicks in once you've committed the crime--at that point, and at only that point does the premeditation become an issue. I don't see any real difference with hate crimes. Does cruising around in your car with your asshole friends fantasizing about beating up some queers become a crime? No. The penalty only kicks in when you jump out of your car to beat people up.

If a gay person kills a straight person because they are tired of straight people's abuse, are they committing a hate crime?

If a group of gay guys attacks some necking straight couple on the street, shouting "Fucking breeders must die!" then yes, they are. In my opinion, there's a significant moral difference between a member of dominant group attacking a member of a subordinate group than vice versa, but that's not a distinction that our legal system usually recognizes.

It's Vetoes Gone Wild! Seriously, what does it say that his only vetoes are: stopping crucial medical research, making sure American kids keep getting blown up in Iraq and defending the rights of gaybashers to wield their shiny silver bats?

-giggle-
Oh. I love the term breeder. It makes me think of algae tanks. I think it's too much sci fi as a child (and adult, if there were such a thing as too much sci fi)
I digress.

So. May 1 is the Day of Loyalty. In context with the threatened veto, the air in the Oval Office has to be absolutely rancid with irony.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html
Text of address here. Particularly ferrous stuff.
"All citizens can express their loyalty to the United States by flying the flag, participating in our democracy, and learning more about our country's grand story of courage and simple dream of dignity."

I love the term breeder. It makes me think of algae tanks. I think it's too much sci fi as a child (and adult, if there were such a thing as too much sci fi)

So. May 1 is the 'Day of Loyalty'. In context with the threatened veto, the air in the Oval Office has to be absolutely rancid with irony.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html
Text of address here. Particularly ferrous stuff.
"All citizens can express their loyalty to the United States by flying the flag, participating in our democracy, and learning more about our country's grand story of courage and simple dream of dignity."

Should there be degrees of hate crimes---1st degree, 2nd degree? If you are a "minority" attacking a dominant member because you dislike men, straights, whites, should you be treated more leniently? These are serious issues, especially as white people become less and less part of the majority in this country.

These are serious issues, especially as white people become less and less part of the majority in this country.

I'm not entirely sure why greater potential vulnerability of white people makes the issues any more serious--they're plenty serious for non-white, non-straight people already.

Still, it's an interesting question you raise. No answers from me!

I guess we can safely assume that nomane wants person C to be able to continue to hate monger without consequences. Funny that he left after I mentioned suing hate mongers. – Ranter
My gut reaction: Yes, I do think people who hate have the right to hate. Others can try to show them why they are wrong, but punishing opinion is unacceptable. If that person goes out and commits a crime, then punish the action and intent, not the motive. If they work for an organization that incited this violence, there are laws that cover that too.
Why bother arguing semantics? Why not just get to the underlining issue. Noname didn't even want to give his opinion of what consequences hate mongers should suffer for their ill deeds. The real issue isn't about legislation, but rather about putting hate mongers out of business. – Ranter
I did give my opinion, I just admitted (gasp!) that I might be wrong and that at the least I needed to refine my argument. Anyway, this thread is about hate crimes legislation, not putting hate mongers out of business. If you want to talk about putting hate mongers out of business, I would suggest you forget about legislating thought. Outlawing opinions is dangerous and ineffective. If you want to fight hate, you must fight ignorance. If you want to fight ignorance, you must educate.

I guess we can safely assume that nomane wants person C to be able to continue to hate monger without consequences. Funny that he left after I mentioned suing hate mongers. – Ranter

My gut reaction: Yes, I do think people who hate have the right to hate. Others can try to show them why they are wrong, but punishing opinion is unacceptable. If that person goes out and commits a crime, then punish the action and intent, not the motive. If they work for an organization that incited this violence, there are laws that cover that too.

Why bother arguing semantics? Why not just get to the underlining issue. Noname didn't even want to give his opinion of what consequences hate mongers should suffer for their ill deeds. The real issue isn't about legislation, but rather about putting hate mongers out of business. – Ranter

I did give my opinion, I just admitted (gasp!) that I might be wrong and that at the least I needed to refine my argument. Anyway, this thread is about hate crimes legislation, not putting hate mongers out of business. If you want to talk about putting hate mongers out of business, I would suggest you forget about legislating thought. Outlawing opinions is dangerous and ineffective. If you want to fight hate, you must fight ignorance. If you want to fight ignorance, you must educate.

"If someone spends three weeks planning to kill their mother-in-law because they hate her cooking, why should they go to jail for less time than someone who spends three weeks planning to kill her because she's asian or a lesbian or a wiccan? Both crimes were motivied by hate."

Well first of all, I think it's a bit telling that people are always using the most absurd examples in arguments like this. Disliking your mother's cooking is not a common reason to kill people, so it's not exactly a problem that can be attacked at the roots.

I do get the impression that you, Erin, from this and previous debates, are really concerned about the whole "reverse discrimination" thing (I'm not even going to comment on your statement of how pedophilia hurts rich white communities more than poor black communities. I don't know how you meant it, but it didn't sound good). I think a point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that this /isn't/ reverse discrimination against whites or males. The Act defines any crime based on race as a hate crime. So if a group of black men was targeting white people /because they were white/, that too is considered a hate crime. And if a woman killed a man because he was male, that too would be a hate crime.

"For what it is worth, I am a rape victim and I don't think all rapes are motivated by hate. My boyfriend in college didn't rape me because he hated women, he raped me because he wanted sex and he got tired of me saying no. So... he just did it."

I guess to me there is minimal difference between hate, and between not respecting someone as a human being with full rights over their own body.

I mean with the line of argument you're using here, you can also just say "well... in the South people just believed blacks existed to serve whites, so if they target blacks it's not necessarily about hating blacks, it's just how they think the natural order of things should go." Or in Vervain's language: "cultural values"

I would be okay for giving longer prison sentences for rape, as you suggest Erin. But when it's hard to convict someone to begin with, and when judges slice years off sentences because the perpetrator apologizes, what are you gonna do? I know we already have laws that theoretically outlaw these things, but like I said I think part of the point of this law is to acknowledge we have trends of certain problems in our culture, and to make it crystal clear that our justice system is willing to fight these problems acknowledging the broader trend. I think it's less about cold, hard logic and is this law fair to the victim and the perpetrator in comparison with every other crime on the book (I mean, who can decide such a thing anyway? I don't believe in the death penalty.), and more about the message this sends to the larger society and putting this crime into law in words that are pretty damn hard to misinterpret.

Anyway, I thought about it my original argument, and read further on in this thread. Last night I got stuck on the issue of intent. Laws already take intent into consideration, so why shouldn’t they do so in the case of hate crimes? What I realized, however, is that hate does not speak to intent, hate speaks to motive. I still believe it is wrong to legislate against motive, and think that the intent / motive distinction solves the inconsistency I acknowledged in my earlier argument.

"I think Vervain may be male, because I recognize the name from another site. If I'm right I don't think it totally invalidatas his viewpoint, but it makes me think he may not be the expert on women's experience and what causes women to feel terror."

"Nina, you probably didn't mean it this way, but this sounds an awful lot like "men aren't allowed to have opinions on rape". "

Oh does it now, even with my particular qualifiers? I do detest when men try to tell women what their experience as a woman is like. For whatever it is worth, I also think black people should be deferred to as generally more knowledgeable about the affects that being targeted for being black has on communities. And of course not every black person is going to agree or have had the same experiences, that's not the point. The point is just that they have the personal experience with the everyday sorts of harassment, and are part of the community being directly affected. I suppose this makes me racist now? Except wait... you've already called me that before.

noname:

Self-defense /is/ motive more than intent, I believe.

Well, but laws do take motive into account--think of the issue of self-defense. If your motive in killing someone is to defend yourself or someone else, you do not face the punishment you would if it were otherwise. If the law can use motive to ameliorate punishment, why can it not use it to intensify it?

I also suspect, though I can't be certain, that motive can be taken into account at the sentencing part of a trial. Is that right, TLF?

Nina: Jinx!

(I'm not even going to comment on your statement of how pedophilia hurts rich white communities more than poor black communities. I don't know how you meant it, but it didn't sound good). – Ninapendamaishi

Relax. I think she is acknowledging that the media tends to make a bigger deal about crimes in white neighborhoods, so white neighborhoods would be more terrorized by those crimes. This is a statement on what the media covers and how that effects others more than anything else.

Media coverage affects how people across the nation perceive crimes. I think it's false though to assume that media is the largest factor in how crimes affect the community of the victims, particularly if the crimes are common and/or it is a close-knit community.

I know for me personally, knowing a friend or family member who has been a victim of a particular crime makes much more of an impact on me than one particular case receiving a lot of national coverage.

So maybe this is a digression, but the important part of this legislation is that it permits the Federal government to intervene when hate crimes are committed.

Murder is murder, regardless of the motive-- point granted.

But.... when someone is beaten to death, and the local authorities decide not to investigate (say, by pretending nothing happened, or that it was suicide), there's a serious issue. Usually, this happens because the local authorities tacitly approve of the crime (e.g. 'the 'victim' asked for it-- maybe they should have thought harder about being that way in our town'). This lack of a response only tends to happen when the violence is directed against minorities.

This legislation wouldn't change they way most crimes (even most "hate crimes") are handled. It would simply allow the Federal government to intervene with the US Attorney General decides the locals aren't doing their jobs.

Self defense is a motive; however it is not a mitigating or enhancing factor in an assault or murder. We do not convict someone of assault and then reduce the sentence to zero because it was self defense. We say they are innocent of assault. So, in this case we have a motive negating a crime, not enhancing or mitigating it.

That seems like a pretty fine distinction to me--that it's OK to use motive to negate a crime entirely, but not as a factor in determining the crime's severity. Just a disagreement, then.

I think it's false though to assume that media is the largest factor in how crimes affect the community of the victims, particularly if the crimes are common and/or it is a close-knit community. – Ninapendamaishi

You may be right (although she never says it was the biggest factor). I thought you were inferring something sinister from Erin’s comment and merely sought to offer an alternate, plausible explanation.

I also suspect, though I can't be certain, that motive can be taken into account at the sentencing part of a trial. Is that right, TLF? – EG

I believe this is true, and it is fine by me. What I want to avoid is having this written into a law as if a motive is a crime in and of itself. This sets an extremely dangerous, ugly precedent.

In reading this comment thread , I've noticed that nobody, on either side of the issue, thought to ask a very important question.

Namely, do laws like the one in question actually work? Or are they merely exercises in feel-goodism and moral self-congratulation?

Well, work in what way? In garnering greater punishment for gay-bashers and their nasty brethren? Yes, they do. In deterring other hate crimes? No idea.

yeah, ditto to EG about the "better" thing... depends on how you define "working" as does everything.

Here's an article I found that talks a little about the history and what the Act does to provide funding for pursuing Hate crimes, though, in addition to linking to some studies:

http://www.pcusa.org/washington/issuenet/crrl-040722.htm

Here is a report from law enforcement responsible for dealing with Hate Crimes in California:

http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/civilrights/reportingHC.pdf

"The Commission found a variety of reasons why victims of hate incidents
and hate crimes do not report to law enforcement or other
public authorities. Some common themes emerged, however, such as
a lack of awareness about hate crime laws and a fear of being revictimized
or of not being taken seriously by law enforcement or other
public agencies. It also became evident that social and cultural barriers
remain that discourage the reporting of hate crimes.
The Commission found major differences in the response to hate
crimes between those communities that have active networks to address
hate crimes and those communities where no such networks
exist."

It seems like the biggest problem in communication here is a misunderstanding of the word "hate" in the way it's used in regard to this legislation.

I prefer to use the term "bias-motivated violence" because it clears things up a little for me. I think it's people's understanding and use of the word "hate" that leads to the killing your mother cause you hate her cooking argument.

I realize that they're called "hate crimes" in this particular legislation, but in discussions, it might be easier to think of it in terms of bias-motivated violence to get everyone on the same page. and it's true that it's hard to argue against "hate crime" legislation due to the wording used. but it's really just a made up term like "partial birth abortion"...and we see how well that scared people into making idiotic decisions.

I dunno, maybe thinking of these crimes using a different word wouldn't help the dialogue here. it just seems like there are a lot of good ideas getting lost in the shuffle right now cause everyone's getting sidetracked with different ideas about the word hate.

i'd give my opinion on the legislation, but it's pretty much been covered by several other posters...no need to beat a dead horse...even if it would have nothing to do with this dead horse's sexual orientation/gender identity or percieved gayness...

Hate crime legislation doesn't make hate illegal, it makes the hate (think racism or some other form of bigotry) motivation behind the violent act a compounding factory in the sentencing after conviction, and it also opens the civil suits doors to go after the organizations that authorized or funded the convicted hate crime felon. Hate crime legislation is designed to combat the institutions that propagate hate that gets acted upon by members of such institutions.

In any case don't worry about the wording of the legislation so much, and focus instead on the intent of the legislation, which is to put hate mongers like Focus on the Family out of business, which is why conservative kooks are so sternly against the hate crime legislation.

Anybody have any idea what the ACLU's opinion of hate crime legislation is?

Yeah you are right that there is hate crime legislation in place to protect Gays and Women in some states, but there is no such legislation at the federal level.

Also Hate Crime legislation provides grants for other operations at the local crime-fighting level. It helps fund special training for law enforcement officers to combat hate crimes, etc. (see the links I posted)

ta-da...

on the ACLU's stance:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12252prs20050526.html

And the ACLU's position, in more detail (their official statement to congress):

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/crimjustice/29391leg20070417.html

Well, work in what way?
Actually, now that you mention it, in both. I think it's far from a given that the legislation in question will lead to "greater punishment for gay-bashers." I know this bill calls for federal involvement in prosecuting these types of cases, but will that, on average, lead to stiffer punishment across board for such crimes? I'm skeptical.

Politicians love to pass the "Tough on Whatever Crime Act of 200X." However, such measures are typically better at garnering votes for pandering politicians than they are at having many real world consequences.

I don't think there's any way that providing funding for law enforcement to pursue specific crimes, and then providing training for law enforcement to deal with victims of those crimes, could /not/ have some affect on the crimes. Not enough, perhaps. But hardly like it could hurt. If you read the links I provided, many crimes have been prosecuted as Hate Crimes since the introduction of the laws, meaning /some people/ have certainly been affected.

And personally, I think including gender would at the least raise a question about how you prosecute rape. Honestly, I haven't caught the prevalence of rape being talked about on a national news source all my life (I'm sure it's been reported on, just apparently not enough for me to have noticed). Which means I think at least having some national debate on the issue would be great.

Even if you're skeptical of the effectiveness of Hate Crime legislation, Zcebab, I don't understand how you can argue that it's a /wrong/ thing to do simply by questioning it's effectiveness. If you're all about education, that's great -me too. But criminilizing Hate Crimes provides yet one more platform on which to educate people about discrimination.

Hate crimes, however well intended, serve to punish thought. No one dislikes Bush more than me, but I hope he vetoes any and all hate crime legislation. It's bad law. If you're concerned with justice and liberty, please read critical arguments regarding hate crime legislation. Here's a place to start: http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1002/article/1199

darwin66,

Did you read the ACLU's statement to Congress that I posted a link to? If anyone cares about civil liberties, it is the ACLU. But they had very specific reasons for supporting this newest Hate Crime legislation, namely a special clause to protect freedom of speech and thus, freedom of thought.

Well apparently the the ACLU disagrees with you Darwin 66, and I will take the ACLU over the questionable issue-views any day. Personally I think your hatred of Bush is questionable, and I stick by my opinion that you are either seriously misinformed (probably because you read issues-views), or you want your hatred of a specific group of people never to suffer consequences.

I hope it is the former rather than the later.

To all readers of this blog.

Before you look at Darwin66's link, take a look at the issues-views front page, and decide if you want to look further. issues-views is definitely right wing. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is obvious that issues-views will be on the side on conservative groups.

Ranter's reactionary, accusatory speculation about the content of my mind is deeply revealing. My concerns with hate crime legislation goes well beyond free-speech protection. It's a classic slippery slope toward punitive severity based on what the State defines as incorrect thought. As an Enlightenment-inspired liberal I find that a frightening prospect.

Well, to me at least, it's clear that hate crimes victims (as opposed to non-racism/homophobia/anti-semitism/etc motivated crime victims) are less likely to report, and less likely to have the crime commited against them taken seriously by law enforcement. So, effectively, shooting a person because he/she is black/gay/Jewish/etc. already has less penalty than, say, shooting such a person in a robbery. Hate Crimes legislation ups the penalty, and allows federal oversight when local cops' racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism/etc gets in the way of doing their job. So, in both ways, it's correcting the unequal treatment by the legal system.

Oh, and of course straight white Protestant men (who are not percieved as something other than that) are still protected, because saying, for example, that hate crimes legislation kicks in with "race" as a motivating factor, it doesn't say it has to be a non-white race. The trucker killed in the LA riots just because he was white, that would be protected.

Well, to me at least, it's clear that hate crimes victims (as opposed to non-racism/homophobia/anti-semitism/etc motivated crime victims) are less likely to report, and less likely to have the crime commited against them taken seriously by law enforcement. So, effectively, shooting a person because he/she is black/gay/Jewish/etc. already has less penalty than, say, shooting such a person in a robbery. Hate Crimes legislation ups the penalty, and allows federal oversight when local cops' racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism/etc gets in the way of doing their job. So, in both ways, it's correcting the unequal treatment by the legal system.

Oh, and of course straight white Protestant men (who are not percieved as something other than that) are still protected, because saying, for example, that hate crimes legislation kicks in with "race" as a motivating factor, it doesn't say it has to be a non-white race. The trucker killed in the LA riots just because he was white, that would be protected.

Actually darwin66,

I read the article in the link you posted, and my biggest problem with it was that it made tons of broad assertions about what sorts of crimes were prosecuted and whether Hate Crime legislation was at all effective, and then provided /no support for it whatsoever/. It kind of reminded me of one of the opinion articles that get published in my college newspaper. He may have some careful and compelling research in his book, but it sure didn't show up in that article.

Ranter – The right to hate is a fundamental civil liberty (as is the right to love, ect.). Also, just because the ACLU says something, that doesn’t make it right. Just like all of us, they too are wrong from time to time.

As proof of my liberal stripes, let me reveal that Stephanie Miller's voice makes my knees buckle in delight. So there. :)

I don't want to take awy your right to hate noname or anyone else's (yeah I am looking at you Darwin66), but I want there to be extreme punishment for anyone convicted of violently acting upon racist of bigoted impulses, and I want the organizations who fund or authorize hate crimes to be open to huge civil suits.

The ACLU is almost always right when it comes to protecting civil liberty (they fought for the rights of Nazis and Rush didn't they?).

"The right to hate is a fundamental civil liberty "

The ACLU acknowledges that, actually. They acknowledge people have a right to hate up until the point where that hate causes them to inflict violence on others? Did /you/ read the ACLU's statement to congress all the way through?

Ranter - Arguing by insinuation is poor form as well. I don't hate anyone, I am just defending the rights of others who do.

Ninapendamaishi,

I wish my students wrote such nice, succinct opinions for our college paper. True, no evidence was offered, but I see it as a well-reasoned position that could be empircally studied. However, even if one could find solid evidence that hate crime laws worked (a tough assignment), that doesn't mean it's good, just legislation.

So am I noname (defending the right to hate, because I hate conservative kooks), but unlike you I want the hate crime legislation passed, and question you because you don't.

"They acknowledge people have a right to hate up until the point where that hate causes them to inflict violence on others?" - Ninapendamaishi

And I don't agree that that right should have a line at which it ends.

Darwin66

The fact that you teach people, and read issues-views I find frightening.

darwin66,

I don't think making assertions as though they are facts, without any kind of support to back you up, should count as "a well-reasoned position".

At least in most of what I've written on this forum, I've used qualifiers to show where I was not sure of something.

We had an opinion-writer recently in our paper who wrote an article about how global warming is just another liberal farce, or something. He used pretty words too, but it doesn't make it a well-reasoned argument if you're basing your argument on assumptions that apparently have no particular basis.

So am I noname (defending the right to hate, because I hate conservative kooks), but unlike you I want the hate crime legislation passed, and question you because you don't. - Ranter

I hope you aren’t insinuating that I am a conservative kook. I am pro choice, pro gay marriage, and anti death penalty. I am against the war in Iraq and would vote to recall Bush in a second. I believe that religion should be kept out of our government policy and further, that churches should lose their tax exempt status.

Why is it that I keep questioning the law, and you keep questioning me?

Hate crime legislation is not based in thought-police. Everyone can hate, you just can't string them to the back of a pick-up truck going fifty-five miles per hour. After all, if I killed or assaulted every man that I hated, cloning would become a global necessity. This seems very simple to me.

"And I don't agree that that right should have a line at which it ends."

By that logic noname we should be able to continue hating each other until we have managed to kill everyone.

At what point does hate becomes unacceptable to you?

To me hate becomes unacceptable when it is acted upon to harm anyone.

I hate conservative kooks, but I don't want to harm them.

I don't know enough to hate you noname or darwin66, but I hate the fact that you both are against making hate (bigoted) motivated violence against women and gays a federally designated hate crime.

"you just can't string them to the back of a pick-up truck going fifty-five miles per hour" - ikkin

See how that works without any mention of hate?

"By that logic noname we should be able to continue hating each other until we have managed to kill everyone." - Ranter

Hate doesn't kill. You say you hate conservative kooks. How many of them have you killed?

Here's a sentence I quickly grabbed from the book review I referenced:

"Hate crime cannot be accurately counted because, given the ambiguous, subjective, and contentious concept of prejudice, it cannot be accurately defined."

As an argumentive claim, it is coherent, logical, and reasonable. I'm a Big fan a quantifiable research, but empirical facts aren't required for a philosophical position to be "well reasoned". The book review doesnt lapse into anything like wild speculation, straw-man arguments, ad hominen attacks, etc. That's what I meant by "well reasoned"...it's a decent, reasonable position.

Do you feel good about the State using your thoughts as a tool for determining punishment? Consider an Alberto Gonzales run America where your "terrorist motivation" for breaking the law by corresponding with a known socialist added five years to your sentence.

Ranter--you're on the edge of idiotville now. Please do provide me a list of acceptable sources for professors to use in presenting multiple viewpoints on complex issues for our university students.

I hate conservative kooks, but I don't want to harm them. – Ranter

Whoops! You made my argument for me in your own post.

"The FBI's annual reports, produced pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, have been fragmentary, nonuniform, and distortive. They have shed much more heat than light. Clearly, they have not contributed to a more accurate understanding of crime, prejudice, or prejudice-motivated crime in American society; nor have these reports laid the basis for more effective law enforcement. "

There, that is what I meant about broad, heavily-loaded assertions without anything to back them up.

"I hate conservative kooks, but I don't want to harm them. – Ranter

Whoops! You made my argument for me in your own post."

Just because Ranter's hate doesn't inspire him to kill, doesn't mean hate never inspires people to kill. And frankly, I think murder is getting used as the example so much in here b/c it's the easiest one to argue about -what about all the other hate crimes that are more frequent, such as assault and harassment? And I think Ranter's defense of the right to hate is fairly straightforward.

"Do you feel good about the State using your thoughts as a tool for determining punishment?"

I think if I hated all white, rich men with a passion, to the point where I was at some point inspired to assault a random one, I would be something of a danger to the country, yes. Even more of a danger than say, your average kook who beats someone up for accidentally running into him on the street...

Do you feel good about the State using your thoughts as a tool for determining punishment?

They already do that, and it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable thing to do.

Do you think that murdering someone because that person raped your daughter is different from murdering someone because you want to steal that person's car?

Do you think that murdering someone by accident during a bar fight is different from planning for six months and executing the murder of a neighbor you don't like?

The punishment for many crimes is altered by the thoughts, motivations, and intentions of the person committing the crime. It's not a matter of criminalizing hate- hate crime laws don't criminalize hate, and it's dishonest to say that they do. What they do, is change the punishment for crimes based on the motivations of the crime. Everyone is still free to hate as many people as they want for whatever reasons they want. Joe Asshole can still be the biggest racist fuck this side of the KKK. What the law does is recognize that, if Joe Asshole's beating up a black man for being black is different from John Mugger's beating up of someone while trying to snag their wallet.

If you are a member of a group that advocates prejudice and hatred against a specific group of people, and then you go out and intentionally harm someone of that specific group, then you are a hate crime criminal, and you have committed a hate crime.

Is that a good enough definition for you Darwin66?

"If you are a member of a group that advocates prejudice and hatred against a specific group of people, and then you go out and intentionally harm someone of that specific group"

I would alter that slightly, to say that if you harm someone for apparently no other reason than because /they/ are a member of a particular group. That's an easy enough definition. Of course, as with any crime, proving it gets a bit trickier. the prosecutor can use evidence to show that you have previously communicated a desire to inflict violence on those particular people, and if you used language displaying hate for those particular people right before or during the crime itself, that's pretty damning... (I'm just going based on what I gleaned from the ACLU statement)

Er, NoName, the initial Hate Crimes bill was passed in 1968. And yes, it was due to the factors that caused rampant lynchings of black men as recently as the 60's in the deep South.

Hate crime legislation is meant to address an inequity. Say, when a white judge or jury doesn't want to ruin the lives of some good ol' white boys just because they got drunk and lynched a black man.

Similarly, juries and judges are still loathe to ruin the lives of nice white boys just because they raped or killed a woman.

And no, not every act of rape or murder of a woman is a hate crime, but very few rapists do it only once, and a distinguishing characteristic of hate crimes is that the perps are more likely to do it again: because it's not a personal motive, it's a motive against an entire group.

"Er, NoName, the initial Hate Crimes bill was passed in 1968. And yes, it was due to the factors that caused rampant lynchings of black men as recently as the 60's in the deep South."

Yeah, the first link I posted mentioned that. I still have no idea if noname bothered to read the 4 links I posted. Out of curiosity, noname, are you a regular at feministing, or am I accurate in thinking you have mainly only gotten engaged in the two different sort of "protection of minorities" loaded cases?

roymacIII,

You're conflating hate crime with the notion of intent. Intent is a separate issue that, thank goodness, has been part of enlightened justice systems for centuries. Hate crime laws add the slippery notion of adjudicating based on the thoughts motivating the intent. If a homophobe kills with intent--lock his sorry ass up for a long time. I strongly feel that the motivation for hate crime support is very noble. I am not convinced that its tenable or good. I don't trust the State to use it well for the next century.

"I am not convinced that its tenable or good. I don't trust the State to use it well for the next century. "

What exactly, specifically, are you afraid is going to happen?

roymacIII,

I mistakenly left out the issue of circumstances that you refer to in the retributional versus theft murder. That too, is and should be part of law. How does hate crime effectively and fairly add to this? Also, I never intended nor said that hate crime has anything to do with makeing hate illegal. Cheers.

"Er, NoName, the initial Hate Crimes bill was passed in 1968. And yes, it was due to the factors that caused rampant lynchings of black men as recently as the 60's in the deep South." - Beta Candy

Yeah. Nina already corrected my original comment for me in one of her links. (my erroneous comment: "I did a quick search, and the first hate crimes legislation I found was passed in 2000 (if there were earlier laws passed, please let me know)").

"Yeah, the first link I posted mentioned that. I still have no idea if noname bothered to read the 4 links I posted." - Nina

I read them. Very informative. I have a lot more to learn too, I’m sure, if you have any more suggested reading of reasonable length. Thanks.

“Out of curiosity, noname, are you a regular at feministing, or am I accurate in thinking you have mainly only gotten engaged in the two different sort of "protection of minorities" loaded cases?� – Nina

I’ve been reading Feministing every day for well over a year now. I typically lurk, as the site doesn’t need yet another person griping about some religious fundy trying to abolish abortion rights (no need to preach to the choir), but I do come out and comment when I disagree with something or an out of the ordinary subject of interest emerges.

Ninapendamaishi

Thanks for updating the definition of a hate crime.

noname

You still have not answered my question. I'll reword it.
When does hate because legally unacceptable to you?

I appreciate the wanting to learn more, noname. I never claimed to be an expert, but I am finding doing research on this issue to be informative myself.

Here’s one religious perspective:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat2.htm

Here’s the American Psychological Association’s position:

http://www.apa.org/releases/hate.html

"I appreciate the wanting to learn more, noname. I never claimed to be an expert, but I am finding doing research on this issue to be informative myself." - Nina

You seem to know more about it than me, at least, so I would be a fool to ignore information you can provide on a subject that obviously interests me.

When does hate because [sic] legally unacceptable to you? – Ranter

Never.

Noname

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I will say living next to you would make me nervous.

Please don't don't kill anybody you hate.

Ranter - I don't hate anyone (what's the point?) and I'm not a violent person (I've never been in a physical fight my whole life).

Nina - Reading your first link really makes me want to agree with you (I hate when I find myself on the same side as the religious right), but I still have reservations as expressed above.

Maybe as I learn more I will agree with you. Hell, I used to be pro death penalty too, until I realized that our judicial system could not be trusted with such power.

noname

Since you don't hate, then why is it you are not opposed to those who spread hate, and why do you not want to infringe the hate that they spread by putting stiff penalties on them whenever anyone acts upon the hate they spread?

That's it. I'm outta here.

noname

You and I are polar opposite. I have endless reasons to hate a lot of people, and I do hate a lot of people, and I have been around more death than any sane man should ever have to witness. But the biggest difference between you and I is that I know just how dangerous hate is. And I will say one last thing; hate with a support group behind it is capable of bloodshed on a scale you can't imagine. Be careful around people who have a capacity for unlimited and restrained hate.

you're a vet, aren't you?

Current serviceman!

Current serviceman!

oh man... did you read the "Interview with Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed "? Of course, she might not have said more than you already knew, depending on where you've been stationed...

Sorry about that Nina

I wrote a long reply, but the comment got lost because of a registry error.

Fortunately I have not been sent to Iraq yet, But I did see Dili burn, and I saw Arabs shoot each other up in Yemen, but I said I was not going to send you my autobiography (at least not in comment).

I have not read Yanar Mohammed's interview yet, but that is because I am rereading FFF. I am trying to decided what parts of that book I will read to my daughter (she is only 5, so I can't read the entire book, but some day I will). I do have a lot of friends in Iraq, but I am sure that their stories are not nearly as intense at Yanar Mohammed's is. The worse sight to see in a war is what you see in the eyes of women and children. I have looked into their eyes, and I must say I was horrified by what they had been through.

PS Every servicewoman I know who has been sent to Iraq claims that they were raped or harshly sexually harassed by fellow GIs.

"Since you don't hate, then why is it you are not opposed to those who spread hate" - Ranter

I am opposed to people who spread hate, I just don't think the government should legislate against their opinions. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

"I think Vervain may be male, because I recognize the name from another site. If I'm right I don't think it totally invalidates his viewpoint, but it makes me think he may not be the expert on women's experience and what causes women to feel terror. Even if I'm wrong, I stand by what I said above about the reality of the frequency of rape being the primary threat to women."

Gee, thanks for the dismissal.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am in fact female, and always have been. In addition to being the proud owner of my very own vagina, I have completed minors in both Women's Studies and Psychology. I've never been raped, but I have been threatened with both rape and assault, and at the time each threat was made, I had every reason to believe it would be carried out. I hope this demonstrates sufficient feminist street cred to satisfy you?
Of course, I could be lying. But if you have any lingering doubts, I invite you to check out this thread in which I commented at length about the "rape paranoia" our culture cultivates in the minds of women, the effect it has on our thinking and our day-to-day lives, and the ultimate catch-22 it creates, in an attempt to help some of our male readers to "get" it. Given the responses my comments received from other female readers, many of which essentially boiled down to "Yes, that's it exactly!" I'm inclined to think I do in fact have a pretty good grasp of women's experience and the causes of their feelings of terror regarding rape and the threat of rape. Since you're interested in the subject, you might considered reading the whole thread if you've got the time--it's quite long--because it digresses into a lengthy discussion of rape as a hate crime, with fairly well-expressed arguments on both sides.

And to clarify my original point, I'm not saying women don't have a legitimate reason to fear rape--not with current statistics being what they are, and given its prevalence. However, I don't believe all the movies, TV shows, and news reports we see about rape that repeatedly hammer home the message that the woman will be held accountable, and the man will have countless excuses made on his behalf exist in a vacuum, either. Where do you suppose so many men got the idea that rape was okay (or if not okay, something they'll probably get away with doing)? The same endlessly-repeated messages that tell women "don't go getting yourself raped now, honey!" also communicate to men that if they rape a woman, they're not really responsible for it--she led them on, she was a slut, she wanted it, she "owed" him sex, they couldn't control themselves, etc. So yeah, you could argue that all rapes are hate crimes--but when the majority of men in our society are raised with fucked-up notions of is and isn't rape, or with the belief that some kinds of rape are tolerable or "normal sex", or taught that women are second-class citizens, is it really fair to hold them fully responsible? They've been grossly misinformed, and locking them up for that strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Sexism has infiltrated out lives so thoroughly that most people (outside of feminists) aren't even conscious of it. Even feminists don't always immediately recognize some things as sexist, or harbor sexist attitudes themselves. I think we need to significantly raise that level of awareness, to get people to consciously recognize their sexist and misogynistic attitudes as sexist and misogynistic (and not as "normal") before we can fairly start holding them accountable for them. Just my opinion.

noname

Unfortunately the only way that I can think of to put a lid on the amount of violence that is motivated by hate, is to hold hate groups accountable for the hate they propagate by opening the doors for civil suits to be launched against them. And the only way to give civil suits a legal basis when trying to make hate groups accountable for the hate they spread, is to make that hate considered criminal when someone is convicted of acting upon it to commit a hate crime . Hate itself shouldn't be illegal but when it has motivated someone to kill, then it should be considered criminal, or at very least a basis to sue the people who propagated it.

noname

Unfortunately the only way that I can think of to put a lid on the amount of violence that is motivated by hate, is to hold hate groups accountable for the hate they propagate by opening the doors for civil suits to be launched against them. And the only way to give civil suits a legal basis when trying to make hate groups accountable for the hate they spread, is to make that hate considered criminal when someone is convicted of acting upon it to commit a hate crime . Hate itself shouldn't be illegal but when it has motivated someone to kill, then it should be considered criminal, or at very least a basis to sue the people who propagated it.

"but when the majority of men in our society are raised with fucked-up notions of is and isn't rape, or with the belief that some kinds of rape are tolerable or "normal sex", or taught that women are second-class citizens, is it really fair to hold them fully responsible?"

Well, and with the other hate crimes, people have generally been raised in an environment where say, beating up homosexuals severely is acceptable or even encouraged (or lynching black is okay, if you go back a few decades). I really have very little problem with holding people who commit atrocious crimes against others responsible. There are enough diverse viewpoints out there they could educate themselves that rape is not okay, if they really wanted to. I honestly don't think it's rocket science. Only about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 men have committed rape, so it's not like it's the majority. I honestly have no idea how you can argue people shouldn't be held fully accountable for misogynistic attitudes and rape, when people are generally expected to be accountable for respecting other people's equal rights and knowing our country's laws.

Part of the point of the Hate Crime Act is to educate people. If these rapists who don't respect women are aware in no uncertain terms that their rape may bear a significant penalty, maybe they will learn not to do it in the first place.

Not to mention, I think it is insulting to men as well as women to suggest that men /can't/ be held responsible for knowing that sexual violence is a prevailing problem for women in this country, and that it is unacceptable. When are they going to learn if they can't be held responsible for knowing it?

I'm not even going to comment on your statement of how pedophilia hurts rich white communities more than poor black communities. I don't know how you meant it, but it didn't sound good

Nina, I can never decide if you're intentionally trying to swift boat me, or if you just don't read my posts before you respond.

I have seen too many of my gay friends beaten to within an inch of their life (thankfully none of my close friends have gotten killed yet), and too many of the women I know have been raped or terribly sexually harassed, so that is why I am totally supportive of legislation that makes violence against women and gays a hate crime.

The motivation created by hate groups to commit hate crimes needs to be directed attacked both through activism and through the justice system.

I think that is enough said for the moment.

Good discussion, and keep up the good work. Take care all.

"I'm not even going to comment on your statement of how pedophilia hurts rich white communities more than poor black communities. I don't know how you meant it, but it didn't sound good

Nina, I can never decide if you're intentionally trying to swift boat me, or if you just don't read my posts before you respond."

No Erin, I'm not stupid, I stand by what I said. I think it's naive to assert (as you did) that media coverage is the determinant of how large an affect a crime has on a community, or how much terror the crime can induce. I think to assert that borders on insulting.

Maybe this will make it clearer: I'm /sure/ you know about crimes that happen in your local community, even if they don't receive national news coverage, don't you? And if they happen to someone in your social network, it's going to affect you, isn't it?

And I think saying that a similar case of pedophilia is going to terrorize a rich white community more than a black community seems insulting to me, no matter what your justification.

You know, I think a lot of our disagreements have to do with our core political platforms. Allow me to be transparent. I think racial issues are a huge problem in this country. I think we have economic and cultural systems that institutionalize racism, and so in order to /not/ be racist we have to actively take steps to try and reverse that and equal the playing field. I was also a supporter of affirmative action, before it got shot to hell these last two years.

Vervain:

All of your theories about media are interesting, I must admit. I also have some criticisms, however. Blaming things on "the media" always seems so very tempting -it's this sort of fuzzy un-emotionless entity... But the media is made by people –the people actually physically making the media, and their viewers. We know men raped frequently before mass media ever came into being, and I'm pretty sure we'd have cultural forces perpetuating rape now even if mass media didn't exist. Even if mass media was to blame for men's confused perceptions of what constitutes acceptable sex vs. rape (and I would argue a fair number of men know when they are raping, but not all) don't you think allowing rape to be penalized as a Hate Crime would communicate in no uncertain terms that men /are/ the one's that have to be responsible for these crimes, not women? It seems to me the Hate Crime Act would offer a solution to the very problem you're complaining about.

Also I think somewhere you mentioned this idea of how the media is what scares women. I don't know about most women, but for myself and some friends I have to severely disagree. I didn't think rape was very prevalent until I got to college, and I was very trusting of men. It wasn't until my friend was raped and I realized the extent of abuse that had gone on between my grandparents and I learned about the statistics of actual crimes that I realized I needed to be a bit more careful. For my friend (the survivor) it was the same thing. She had never thought rape was a big societal problem. Most college women I've talked to don't realize it's a big problem until I have the conversation with them (well, unless they're survivors themselves, that is).

Nina, I've not seen Erin post things that indicate that she doesn't think that race is a huge socio-political issue. I understood her to be saying that the justice system would, in all likelihood, replicate the same racism you find in media coverage, and the appalling fact is that when blonde white girls are abducted and killed, it makes national headlines in a way that it tends not to when it's nonwhite kids, and that in terms of sentencing, she's saying that the same biases would apply--the community in both of her examples is the same: the community in power.

"I think it is insulting to men as well as women to suggest that men /can't/ be held responsible for knowing that sexual violence is a prevailing problem for women in this country, and that it is unacceptable."

I said fully responsible, actually. I wasn't just padding out my comment with random words for extra length. I think men do understand that rape is a crime, but I've seen too many men argue about what does and doesn't "count" as rape, or about how the threat of vindictive "false accusations" is far greater that statistics claim, and the threat of actual rape far less, to honestly believe that they truly comprehend how bad things are. Maybe that's insulting, but it's not an insult--just an observation. If it makes you feel any better, I've also come across a lot of stories from women who were most definitely raped, but didn't call it that. So it's not just the men who are operating from a garbled definition.

If you believe that all men who rape women know on a conscious level that what they are doing is A) actually rape and B) are doing so in a deliberate effort to punish and terrorize ALL women with the threat of rape, I'm afraid I'm inclined to think you're a bit naive.
Sure, most men who rape, rape women. But I don't think they do so just because they're women. I suspect it's mainly because they're heterosexual. A lesbian rapist will rape other women but not men. A gay rapist will rape other men but not women. Outside single-sex environments like prison, I don't think you see many rapists raping outside their sexual preference. I could be wrong--I don't have any statistics on the subject handy.

But honestly, you only need to read a few of the threads about rape here and on other feminist blogs to get a taste of the lengths to which some rapists will go to justify their actions, and the lengths to which some people (men and women) will go to make excuses for them, or to blame the woman, or to insist it wasn't rape at all. It's really quite disconcerting.

Here are a couple which are notable in that even the most seemingly obvious and indefensible acts of rape will nevertheless somehow gain staunch defenders:
http://pandagon.net/2006/12/28/real-consent-manifesto/
http://feministing.com/archives/006826.html#comments
And here's another memorable one, which illustrates that men aren’t the only ones who are confused:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/01/loooong_post_on.html

To be clear, I'm not opposed to women being included in anti-hate crime legislation. I think they absolutely should be. I'm only opposed to the idea of prosecuting ALL rapes perpetrated against women by men as hate crimes against women. Because I don't think they ALWAYS are.

I'm out. My allergies are kicking my ass. :(

"f you believe that all men who rape women know on a conscious level that what they are doing is A) actually rape and B) are doing so in a deliberate effort to punish and terrorize ALL women with the threat of rape, I'm afraid I'm inclined to think you're a bit naive."

I never said all men know on a conscious level. On the other hand, for every other crime we expect people to be held responsible for knowing the laws and know that what we're doing is wrong, so in my mind what you're doing is perpetuating the idea that men don't have to be held responsible.

"To be clear, I'm not opposed to women being included in anti-hate crime legislation. I think they absolutely should be. I'm only opposed to the idea of prosecuting ALL rapes perpetrated against women by men as hate crimes against women. Because I don't think they ALWAYS are."

I'm not sure I agree with you. But I think this is fair enough, I guess.

"Nina, I've not seen Erin post things that indicate that she doesn't think that race is a huge socio-political issue. I understood her to be saying that the justice system would, in all likelihood, replicate the same racism you find in media coverage, and the appalling fact is that when blonde white girls are abducted and killed, it makes national headlines in a way that it tends not to when it's nonwhite kids, and that in terms of sentencing, she's saying that the same biases would apply--the community in both of her examples is the same: the community in power."

Well and I think I left my theories about EG and I having different core platforms on race wide open to being disproven by EG. But I certainly have not gotten the impression she is concerned about blacks being more harshly punished for crimes against whites under the Hate Crime Act than vice versa. I have gotten the impression that EG is more concerned about what is sometimes called "reverse discrimination."

Wait, Erin changed her name from EJ specifically so that we wouldn't be confused for each other any more! I'm EG.

"Sure, most men who rape, rape women. But I don't think they do so just because they're women. I suspect it's mainly because they're heterosexual. A lesbian rapist will rape other women but not men. A gay rapist will rape other men but not women. Outside single-sex environments like prison, I don't think you see many rapists raping outside their sexual preference. I could be wrong--I don't have any statistics on the subject handy."

If memory serves, an awful lot of men who rape men are heterosexual-identified. And anyway, I'm not sure if being heterosexual justifies targeting women. I mean if these same rapists were attracted to men, would they rape those men instead (I'm sure this is A) impossible to determine on an individual case basis and B) would differ for every individual, but I do think rape is most generally a demonstration of power and a crime against women, as supported I think by all those media things you were complaining about). Not all heterosexual men are equally likely to rape women, either. It's been demonstrated in studies that men who hold conservative, traditional beliefs about gender roles are more likely to rape -so I don't think a sexual attraction for a certain group of people absolves someone of possibly hating them. Furthermore, men have been known to rape lesbians, and to rape elderly women, and other women that would not normally be their sex partners who they would choose to be associated with in public. I think this latter case is pretty clearly hate to me. But I think saying rape is not a hate crime because there is a sexual attraction is just so inherently flawed, and just ok-ing for so many other problems.

"Wait, Erin changed her name from EJ specifically so that we wouldn't be confused for each other any more! I'm EG."

Sorry... at least you know what I meant

Rape is a hate crime against women. You can read why I (and Vervain) think so on this thread.

I meant me and Law Fairy not Vervain.

Yes...

We

are

the

Borg.

You

will

be

assimilated.

But Vervain kind of rocked on that thread too!

For what's it's worth, I agree.

We shouldn't have to explain to regular Feministing readers that rape terrorizes women.