The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Hate Crime Laws

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Jed Thompson — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:46:29 -0000

I don't support the death penalty in any instance...precisely for the reasons I have stated.

It may be "fitting" for someone who commits murder, but it does nothing to advance or protect our society.

The only defense of the death penalty is, 'eye for an eye' justice, as you are arguing for to a degree. I don't see believe that should be a factor.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

TracyW — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:36:25 -0000

cocolamala - I agree that the laws are written to protect people who have historically been discriminated against. But is that a good thing? It's individuals who are hurt by crimes - if a white straight man is beaten up, could you seriously say to him "oh well, your group wasn't discriminated against in the past, so your pain doesn't matter as much?"

There may be real connections between historic legally sanctioned discrimination and current violence, but how does that justify the law discriminating now? Aren't we trying to move to a society where everyone is valued by society independently of their race/gender/sexual orientation? We may want to put extra effort into prosecuting some crimes in order to change social expectations, but I don't see the case for introducing a new class of laws.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:12:08 -0000

Then what's the purpose of the death penalty, or sentences of life without parole? Theoretically, all people have at least some redeeming qualities. I don't think it'd be difficult to imagine the possibility that all criminals, no matter how terrible their crimes, could be rehabilitated to the point at which, many years down the line, they would no longer pose a danger to society. So why do we hand down sentences that make rehabilitation moot?

The answer, no matter how much people want it to be otherwise, is that the punishment is meant to fit the crime. With victimless crimes, I agree that deterrence and rehabilitation are the key motivating factors as to how we sentence them. But when there's a clear victim (as with cases of theft or violent crime), the state is also duty-bound to seek justice on behalf of the party that's been harmed.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Jed Thompson — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:13:53 -0000

...And personally I just don't agree with the punishing point of you.

I believe we should punish to deter, but not out of revenge.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Jed Thompson — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:11:49 -0000

I agree that should be the goal of the criminal justice system. I disagree that is an argument to send anyone to prison.

This is why I don't support sending drug abusers to prison...they can be rehabilitated else where more efficiently and effectively.

When a dangerous individual is sent to prison, there should be an attempt to rehabilitate. But the point is that they are there because of the threat they pose to society.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Luuk — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:15:29 -0000

Breaker, I am taking no offense. In law, definitions are of the utmost importance, and using the same ones is crucial to the debate (glad to see you also use dictionary.com). I would suggest though, that if in a legal discussion, you use only the legal definition. So for intent we should use only "the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object."

However, I don't think the definition is the problem. In fact, I'm pretty sure we're both right and wrong, regardless of our definition.

The problem is my assumption that motive-based crimes (for lack of a better term) are in opposition to intent-based crimes. There is no such thing as an intent-based crime; or better said, all crimes, even those with motive as an element, are intent-based crimes and the intent must extend to the motive, which is what you were correctly stating. A person's state of mind must always be considered to determine culpability; in fact, it is the most important aspect.

By the way, I've used "element" a couple of times now, without defining it. An element is any part of the description of a crime which must be proven in order to come to a conviction.

Motive-based crimes, crimes with motive as an element, are therefore crimes in which a particular reason must be proven to exist in order to come to a conviction. They are specific acts that given a particular reason, are considered illegal. That same act, if committed for a different reason, is not illegal. In the case of bribery, giving money to a police officer is illegal only if your reason is to unduly influence him or her. Any other reason you might have to give money to a cop is legally permissible.

Motive-based crimes stand in contrast to consequence-based crimes, such as assault. There the consequence of your actions (severe bodily harm) is what defines the criminality, regardless of your reasons for doing so. You therefore do not need to prove the person was acting because of a particular reason.

A hate crime would make motivation an element in assault, making it harder to prove. Considering assault is hard enough to prove as it is, I consider this enough reason to not have hate crimes. But like you, I'm extremely concerned about the larger implications. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it led to criminalizing hateful thought or speech - that is, in one generation or more, we'll hear the argument "well, we already consider hate to make crimes worse...why not criminalize hate itself to avoid the possibility of such crimes?"

By the way, I live and studied law in the Netherlands, where the usual duration of the program is 4 years (bachelor and master). The reason why it took me 5 years is because I failed formal criminal law, twice. Sad thing is, this subject is material criminal law, with which I did pretty well. I'm glad you pushed back, because at least now I think I have a better understanding of the issue.

We also have a term in Dutch, "mierenneuken" ("fornicating"...not sure if I can use the actual word here, but I think you can guess what it is...with ants), which denotes a needless devotion to semantics. Which given our complete agreement on the larger issue of hate crimes, is what I think we're doing.

So I'm with you, I think I've made my final point.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:04:56 -0000

Personally, I think punishing (and eventually, theoretically, reabilitating) a criminal is a pretty solid reason.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

TracyW — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:08:14 -0000

How about a family wakes up and discovers their garage has been vandalised by someone spraypainting non-racist, non-sexual, non-gendered threats all over it, basically saying "Get out of here, or we'll burn your house down with you in it".

Swastikas carry an implicit threat, given the violence committed by the Nazis against the Jews. I'm all for punishing the threat, but I don't see why that should be punished more than a non-discriminatory threat.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

TracyW — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:05:04 -0000

Ummm,doesn't the guy who beats someone up because they stepped on his shoes make *everyone* afraid? After all, we all share the characteristic of "possibly at some point in the future accidentally standinging on someone's toes" Doesn't public space become unsafe to everyone if there's such an asshole running around?

Didn't everyone get scared when those Beltway snipers were operating?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

TracyW — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:00:10 -0000

But people can intend to terrorise the entire community without any racist intent - eg a gang who just want to extract money from victims like the Mafia do and are so greedy that they don't care about their victim's race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.

And if you want to give more resources for prosecution in a locale where the local authorities don't value the life/well-being of the victim, why not do that directly? Why make it dependent on the state of mind of the murderer? To take the case of my greed-obsessed gang, if they killed your brother in their campaign of intimidation wouldn't you want them brought to justice independently of their motives? And if the local authorities weren't interested, why shouldn't the feds come in in that case?

Or say if your brother was murdered by someone of the same ethnic group and sexual orientation out of motives of jealousy, and the local racist authorities didn't care because "that's what those sort of people do to each other". Should't the feds come in that case too?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

TracyW — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:52:33 -0000

But why should we deter that more strongly, compared to say, some person who throws a punch because they like seeing their victims cowering in pain? Or someone who throws a punch because they want a reputation as a bad boy and don't care who they hit to get it?

Why should any characteristic of anyone justify them being punched? Well, some are obvious, eg if I am coming at you waving a bloody knife and screaming that I'm going to cut your heart out, then that's a characteristic of me that would justify you acting in self-defence. And we can also make adjustments if I have been behaving in a very provoking way and also if this punching is very out-of-character for you. But there are millions of benign characteristics of people that don't justify being punched, why single out some of them like race or gender?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:41:28 -0000

@Luuk,

Honestly I hate to break out definitions. It can be taken as a really condescending thing to do. Please do not take offense in me doing this. You seem to be quite intelligent and reasonable. And if you have five years of law school, I'm sure you know more about the law than me. Please read this as a civil attempt by which I'm trying to further explain my point.

"We instinctively read 'giving money with the purpose to subvert the process' as the specific act to which intent must be proven, whereas the actual act is 'giving money' and the 'purpose to subvert the process' is the motive for giving money."

in-tent

–noun

1. something that is intended; PURPOSE; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

2. the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.

3. Law. the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.

4. meaning or significance.

(My emphasis on purpose)

mo-tive

-noun

1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.

3. (in art, literature, and music) a motif.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but from where I stand, you seem to be conflating purpose with goal.

1. You don't want to get a ticket. Not getting a ticket is the goal.

2. To attain your goal, you devise a course of action (i.e. giving money) with the intent of satisfying that goal.

3. You give the money.

While it is without question that you are intending to give money, that is not where your intent ends. The purpose for which you are giving the money (i.e. to subvert the process) is your greater intent. Your motive is what drives you to that intent. Your motive is not wanting to get a ticket. Your intent is to not get one. These lines get really blurry the more we talk about them.

In the example of a hate crime:

1. You don't like homosexuals, you don't want them in your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world. These desires fuel a hate that motivates you to act.

2. Your action carries with it not only an intent to act, but an intent to do harm to the body or property of your victim. One could make the argument, as some have, that it carries an added intent to terrorize a community. Fine. But it's the intent to terrorize, not the desire to have that community be terrorized that we punish people for.

One final (I think) point:

Intent is the design, the planning, and the purpose of an action. To intend is to act. Grammatically, when we intend to do something, we are the subject of the sentence. Since the intention is an action within itself, we can be charged for intention alone.

Motive is that which drives us to act. Rather than motivating ourselves, someone or something else, motivates us. It is not about acting, it's about being acted upon. We are the direct object. The motive is the subject performing the action on us. We can only be held to account for those actions we perform, not those that are performed on us.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Luuk — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:22:34 -0000

Breaker, I thought the same thing at first.

The nuance is on specific acts, that would otherwise be legal. Giving money to cops is not illegal, you might just have sympathy for the profession, your pops could've been a cop, or you might be an altruistic person. Even in the example you posit, giving money does not have to be nefarious, it might be that the person is "tipping" the police officer for doing a good job (unlikely, but just for the sake of argument). If the cop then says "I'll rip up your ticket" and the person says "No, you must still do your duty" the act is not a bribe, but a tip.

Intent to perform the specific act (give money to police) can therefore not be enough to convict on a bribery charge. You need that additional part, purpose/motive, to make it stick.

I think you might be confused, as I was, because motive is actually an element in those crimes. We instinctively read "giving money with the purpose to subvert the process" as the specific act to which intent must be proven, whereas the actual act is "giving money" and the "purpose to subvert the process" is the motive for giving money. Compare this to any other crime, which will say nothing about "purpose". Fear, etc. are therefore components of the "purpose to subvert the process"

It took me a while to get the nuance as well, and I have five years of law school under my belt. I suggest you read the article offered before. Hessick offered a real-life example of treason that brought the point home to me: a dad bought his son a car.

As to all your other points, I think you're right on the money.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:50:10 -0000

Again, I think you're mistaking (as Alesis has) intent for motive. In bribery, the difference is more subtle, but it's a difference nonetheless. Say a cop pulls you over, you're motivation is your fear of jail or desire not to get a ticket or just to be on your way. Your intent is to satisfy that motive. Your crime is paying him with the intent of having him break his ethical and legal duty. You're motivated to do this out of a fear, or whatever. We do not try you because you're afraid to go to prison. We try you because it's illegal to do what that fear motivated you into doing.

It's the same with obstruction. The motive is not obstructing justice. Something else motivates you TO obstruct justice.

Do you see the difference?

As to whether the visibility of hate crimes (through a sensational media story or whatever) make people feel less safe. There's probably some truth to that. To be honest though, I am dubious of this notion that the laws are designed to make groups feel safe in the first place. I think the laws are designed to satisfy a marginalized groups' desire for vengeance. Call it justice if you want, from the perspective of the victim, it's almost always the same thing.

In the end, why should we believe that hate crime law would make people feel more safe? If regular criminal law (which, you have to admit, allows for some pretty harsh penalties) is an insufficient deterrent, then what makes us think hate crime is going to be a more effective one? Casting aside the moral and ethical arguments for and against hate crime legislation, do we really believe that these laws act as a more effective deterrent than regular criminal law? And if it's no more effective as a deterrent than traditional criminal law, and if the same crimes would still carry harsh penalties under traditional criminal law anyway, then what's the point?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Luuk — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:30:14 -0000

Alesis listed a number of crimes at 2:08 PM yesterday which do contain motive as an element (bribery, etc.). However, for those it is because the exact same act can be legal. One can give money to a politician legally, so intent to give money would not be sufficient, you really need to know the reason why one is giving money. As it pertains to perjury, the act of lying is not criminal, but it is if your motive is to subvert the legal process. Obstruction of justice in and of itself is not motive based, but specific acts, otherwise legal, are considered criminal if the motive is to obstruct justice.

I'm not sure if it can or should apply to hate crime laws. Anything from burning crosses in another's lawn without their permission to murder can never be legal acts, and I would suggest we therefore keep to the general rule of not having motive as an element of crime.

A point that hasn't been brought up before: might hate crime laws, especially ones with motive as an element, have a negative effect on the perceived safety of the threatened community? If motive is taken as an element of the crime, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When it can't be, we can still prove and convict on the "lesser"/non-hate motivated crime, but it might feel like a defeat. That could serve to strengthen either the terror or the feeling that the legal system does not care about the particular group.

Even if we can consistently convict, are constant headlines about hate crimes on, say, CNN really going to make a threatened group feel safer? I keep thinking about registration of sex offenders: although it was supposed to make people feel safer, it seems to have the opposite effect. Anytime anyone (especially women) I know realizes there are a number of sex offenders living in their vicinity, they get more scared, at least in the short term. Anecdotal, I know, so I'm wondering if anyone's experience is different from mine.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:20:31 -0000

But 'terrorism' is a question of perspective. Any community may feel terrorized by any violence that targets one of their own brutally (regardless of the motivation behind the violence). Hate crime, if it's about anything, is about motive. You don't need to intend to strike fear in the hearts of a community in order to be charged as a hate criminal. Nor is everybody who strikes fear into the heart of community tried as one. The only prerequisite to being tried as a hate criminal is a motive based on an antipathy you hold towards a protected group. Therefore, it is about worldview. This is why the comparisons to anti-terror law tend to fall apart.

In the case of terrorism, for example, we argue that the intent of the terrorist is to not only cause death, but also fear among the population at large. But the MOTIVATION isn't to cause terror. That's the intent. The motivation is religious fundamentalism, or hatred of the West, or the federal government, or capitalism, or abortion policy, or environmental policy, or world trade policies, or whatever. But you know as well as I do that we do not charge terrorists (when we charge them) for the worldview that motivated them to carry out their acts.

The question I would pose to you is this: If this is--as you say--really about combating terrorism, then why isn't there a greater push to broaden the definition of what is covered under anti-terror laws?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

PPR_Scribe — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:23:27 -0000

In these conversations many people cannot seem to go beyond the idea of "motive." Hate crimes legislation is not about motives or "thoughts" or "worldviews," but about terrorism and allowing crimes to be adequately prosecuted that otherwise may not be.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Mon, 04 May 2009 10:49:14 -0000

Please give a concrete example of an instance in which the indictment itself includes motive.

I am not asking for an instance in which motive informs the indictment (as in the difference between degrees of murder or manslaughter). Give an example that the crime the suspect is being charged with includes the motivation behind commiting the crime.

We don't, to my knowledge, charge people with perjury or obstruction because they didn't want to get themselves in trouble. We charge them because they lied or obstructed. Why they did it can be considered as either an aggravating and mitigating factor to how we charge or sentence them, but we do not include the motivation itself as part of the indictment (i.e. He robbed the bank because he wanted money, he shot the guard because he wanted to get away.)

Again, maybe I am showing my lack of legal bona fides here. When it comes to actual case law (or any kind of law, really), I am seriously out of my element. I may very well be demonstrably incorrect, legally speaking. I'd just like you to demonstrate. So far, the examples and scenarios given in defense of the law as a concept (e.g. drunk driving vs. premeditated murder; being stupid vs. being devious) seem surprisingly weak to me.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Picador — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:53:31 -0000

The standard conservative line against hate crimes laws is that it punishes "thoughtcrime;"

This is not just a "conservative" line. In the US, I have a fairly good idea what hate speech and hate crime statutes would look like in their drafting and enforcement:

Assault: punished by 1 year in prison

Assault of a Christian: hate crime, 10 year minimum

"The Bible tells me that the Palestinians are animals infecting our homeland who must be slaughtered": protected religious expression

"Israel has some issues": anti-semitic hate speech, 10 year minimum

And so on. I'm hardly a "conservative", but I'm not generally a fan of MORE punitice criminal law, nor of MORE government discretion in administering it, given whose interests the government is designed to protect.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

Alesis — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:30:41 -0000

The fact is a number of crimes consider motive a part of the indictment.

There's nothing wrong with that, the motive itself it not a crime, but violence with motive is simply a different crime than violence without.

It's not even necessarily greater as judicial discretion allows for normal violent crime to be punished just as harshly.

I point right back to the reductionist way the issue is discussed.

We like to pretend this is about criminalizing bigotry,I know from experience that one can be an outspoken bigot in this country with nothing to fear from law enforcement.

As much as some people would like you to believe it, this isn't thoughtcrime.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:54:26 -0000

Should read 'wouldn't raise any argument...'

So much for clarity.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:16:48 -0000

And I don't know why it took me so long to make this point more clearly. It's not about whether or not the state should consider worldview when determining how to charge the accused. It's about whether or not bias should be written into the indictment. The bias or the motive which relates to bias, in how it relates to intent is certainly a relevant factor in determining whether somebody is charged with third degree manslaughter vs. first degree murder (or whatever). It can further be considered during sentencing as an aggravating factor.

If this were all that hate crime did, I would raise any argument against it. But this, again, is not what hate crime law does. Hate crime law takes these considerations a step further. It creates a new classification of crime in which bias is not simply relevant to the indictment, but is literally part of the indictment.

So again, to the example of the pederast, the crime is child rape or sexual abuse. The crime is not child-rape-or-sexual-abuse-because-the-suspect-is-attracted-to-young-boys-and-sees-no-problem-with-pursuing-this-attraction. In the case of pederasty, I don't know how much good remorse is going to do the suspect in the end, but let's just accept the idea that lack of remorse would be considered a justification for harsher sentencing. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that with hate crime scenarios, also. I'm more than fine with it. I think it is completely appropriate.

I just don't want worldview written into indictments. I want it to relate to the crime. I want it to inform the nature of the crime. I just don't want it to be part of the crime itself. Is this clear?

Re: Hate Crime Laws

RhondaCoca — Mon, 04 May 2009 06:35:34 -0000

I should also include that back in the day, a friend of mine used to like to go to those neighborhoods with his friends to cause trouble. He was from East New York as well. I guess there was a thrill in it for them. It was not too smart. They failed to realize how their actions would exacberate already hostile feelings towards blacks in those communities giving them what some would call a "justification" for age old racism.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

RhondaCoca — Mon, 04 May 2009 06:25:23 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

I should highlight something important coming from a native New York resident. Howard Beach has a history of hate crimes and racial tension. Even my father's close friend was assaulted by three young men back in the 80s and the perpetators were acquitted of all charges. They said that he had no business in the neighborhood. My uncle was attacked in an Italian section of the Bronx around the same time. I am still uneasy about going to Bensonhurst, Howard Beach etc.. even in 2009. My father's friend and my uncle entered hostile territory never understanding the level of racism and anomosity because they were new immigrants from the Caribbean.

Neighborhoods like Howard Beach and Bensonhurst in Brooklyn have bad track records which is why anything coming out of those neighborhoods are analyzed.

P.S. When a group of young Latino guys beat up a young white guy back when I was in high school, they were actually charged with a hate crime on top of their charges because they had proof that they were looking to target a young white male walking by himself. I was friends with victim in high school.

Re: Hate Crime Laws

BreakerBaker — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:58:13 -0000

Don't make this a quasi-Affirmative Action argument. You can make the argument that hate is in every crime, but don't make into an implication that the law is racist. It's simply not all inclusive, which probably calls its constitutionality into question, but this would be cleared up through the courts, and the protection would inevitably far beyond the initial intent of the authors of the law (which was my meaning when I've addressed the notion of plausibly hated groups that would likely gain protection under future forms of the law, the Klan would be a likely and ironic example of a group who would be entitled to future protection under hate crimes law).

But the weakest argument out there is to say 'We're not included in this law, so it's unfair.' It may be true, but there are ways around that. Would you be happy if you were included? Personally, I think it's a law that threatens to rob us of our civil liberties, so I consider protection under such a law to be a dubious state of being.