If you take the position that hate crimes legislation are wrong on principle, then stand up and support legislation to strike down the hate crimes laws that are already on the books. I’m fine with that position. If instead you are against adding gay people to the statute, then you are basically saying that is okay for the government to provide special protections for groups who have innate characteristics (like race) or characteristics by choice (like religion) but not based on sexual orientation, which everyone agree is either an innate characteristic, a choice or a combination of the two.

Mr. Moderate,

I agree with you on this point. There are some people who oppose this particular hate crimes for no other reason than because it adds sexual orientation to the list of groups and that being homosexual is part of a lifestyle that should not be condoned by the government. I completely disagree with this line of thinking, but I also happen to oppose the idea of hate crimes legislation in the first place.

I think that I gave a rational argument against hate crimes legislation that differs from the standard conservative position that one often hears from opponents of hate crime legislation. I approach it from a libertarian angle–one that takes a neutral view with regards to race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation and addresses rather whether such legislation is the proper role of government in the first place.

The fact one can make a principled argument against this particular piece of hate crimes legislation with criticizing gays makes the gay-bashing that sometimes accompanies this debate all the more repulsive to me. Hate crimes legislation should be view in terms of being “pro gay” versus “anti gay” but rather in terms of whether this is a proper role of government and whether it truly improves the lives of the victims that it claims to be helping.

As someone who supports the rights of gays and lesbians to live their lives as their wish, to marry whoever they wish, and to adopt children should they wish to do, I do not in any way agree with the line of thinking posited by anti-gay bigots or by politicians who pander to anti-gay bigots for political gain.

This law is more important in cases of assault and battery where local law enforcement willfully or because of lack of resources does nothing to bring attackers to justice. Even in cases of killing local AG’s have accepted gay rage defenses. I know it is pathetic in this day and age but in a good percentage of this country just saying a gay guy hit on you is enough defense for beating them up and/or killing them. Luckily that percentage is decreasing, but it is still far from zero.

It is unfortunate that in this day and age we still have places in this country where a gay person can get beaten to a bloody pulp and have the local officials do nothing about it. Worse, the local officials can dismiss the entire incident by the attacker(s) claiming that they had “gay rage” from the gay person making a pass at them. Without this legislation there is no recourse for the gay person except to let justice slip through their fingers. That is not making the attacks against gays worse in the eyes of the justice system than one against some random person, it is bringing to the justice system a parity for that crime that currently doesn’t exist in much of the areas of this country.

If we punish more severely those who commit Crime M(urder) for Reason R(ace), S(exual orientation) or W(hatever), we are declaring that we’re less concerned with people who commit murder for Reason G(reed), J(ealousy) or B(ecause the victim was a liberal).

In other words, society would be saying that committing murder because of greed or jealousy is not as bad as committing murder because of an animus towards blacks or gays. Is this true? Given that there are many more greed-motivated murders than hate-based murders, what is the rationale that society is harmed more by the relatively few race-driven murders than the many many more which are committed because of greed and jealousy?

Shouldn’t society punish more severely those who inflict the bigger damage to society?

This should be put on the front page…

Besides, killing is killing is killing: it is (nearly) always wrong.

The entire post can be read more legibly over at The Coming Realignment.

I think part of the intention of Hate Crimes laws is protection of communities from bigoted terrorism. That is, to impose stricter laws in order to prevent the harassment and terrorization of a community by bigots. But maybe you could use some form of anti-terrorism law against that, or create a figure by which terror, in the form of multiple crimes, committed against ANY whole community

Fortunately, I can read pretty fast and there is little in conclusion that I take any issue with.

What I can’t do is type fast………I would have had to start on that post yesterday afternoon!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

> I’ll bet you ANYTHING
> that the people lobbying
> hardest against this law
> are *gasp* groups that
> virulently attack
> homosexuality

I decline your offer, as I would expect to lose that bet.

Front and center in this is the Religious Right and they are very much against homosexuality.

Just to note that Austin Roth’s “more general bigotry” remark strikes me as accurate. (Not all the Religious Right is bigoted, and not all bigots are Religious Righters, incidentally.)

I can already foresee this story generating some explosive debate, so first off, before anyone goes any further on this topic, I strongly recommend that you all READ THE TEXT OF THE BILL. It can be found “here. Let’s be very clear what we are debating before we get up in arms and allow this debate to devolve into unfair attacks.

I’m not going to post the entire text of the bill (that would take too much space), but I have posted that part which I feel is relevant to this debate:

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

First off, let it be clear that this is an amendment to already existing laws. My objection to this bill arise not because of the specific changes that have been made but because I oppose hate crimes legislation on principle. I do so because I believe that people should be prosecute based upon the crimes they commit and not based on whether their crimes were committed out of hatred toward any one particular group.

This reflects a change in my views.

At one time, I was a strong supporter of hate crimes legislation. In fact, the first time I debated someone on this topic was following one of the three presidential debates between Gore and Bush in 2000. During the date, Gore (predictably) favored hate crimes legislation while Bush (predictably) came out against hate crimes legislation. Mind you, this was in the backdrop of the incident involving James Byrd, an African-American male in who was tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death by three white men. This horrific incident occurred in Texas in 1998, so it was only natural that Bush (having been the governor at the time of this incident and had stated his opposition to hate crimes laws) would be questioned about this issue during the campaign. During the debate Bush argued that crimes such as this horrible and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and since the three men who committed this crime were sentenced to death, tougher laws were unnecessary.

At the time, I was outraged (against Bush, that is). Given that I was pulling for Gore, I was predisposed to disagreeing with Bush anyway–particularly on what I regarded as social/personal freedom issues. But at the time, I remember myself feeling confident that I was right and that Bush was seriously out of touch on this issue. My reasoning was simple:

1) I believe that murder/assault is wrong.

2) I believe that bigotry is wrong.

3) Therefore, committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is more wrong than committing either offense alone.

4) Therefore, a person who commits murder/assault motivated by bigotry should receive a harsher sentence than a person who commits murder/assault not motivated by bigotry.

It made perfect sense to me at the time, yet I was unable to convince my roommate, who tends to have similar views as I do on social/personal freedom issues and had just watched the debate with me. Referring to Bush’s argument, my roommate pointed out that if hate crimes laws had been enacted, the three men who had murdered James Byrd wouldn’t have received a harsher penalty, as they received the death penalty.

But to me, that wasn’t the point. It was the general principle of the matter-that committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is worse than committing murder/assault in the absence of bigotry and that our laws should reflect this. I debated my roommate for about twenty minutes and wasn’t able to convince him to my point of view. It was until after I had pondered this issue for several months that I began to understand why my argument hadn’t been that convincing…

It was a flawed argument.

At heart of this debate and many other political debates is whether one believes that government laws should reflect our personal beliefs. All too often, those on both the left and the right justify their positions by arguing, “Well, I personally believe this to be very wrong, therefore, the government should take steps to prevent/prohibit it.”

Let’s consider my argument above:
1) I believe that murder/assault is wrong.

2) I believe that bigotry is wrong.

3) Therefore, committing murder/assault motivated by bigotry is more wrong than committing either offense alone.

4) Therefore, a person who commits murder/assault motivated by bigotry should receive a harsher sentence than a person who commits murder/assault not motivated by bigotry.

Premise #1 is easy. I, like 99.9999% of the people in this country, believe that murder/assault is wrong. It violates my personally held beliefs. But the government doesn’t prohibit murder/assault because it violates our personally held beliefs. Government prohibits murder/assault because it is an infringement on the right of the victim.

Let’s consider premise #2. I personally believe that bigotry is wrong. I believed this in 2000 (when I supported hate crimes legislation), and I continue to believe it today. But just because I and others hold something to wrong, doesn’t make it a crime. People have a right to be bigots, and likewise, I have the right not to associate with such small-minded people. People do not, on the other hand, have the right to demand others not be bigots.

With this is mind, I continue to believe premise #3 is true; however, clearly this is my own personal opinion. I look at it like this: If you murder someone, then you’re a murderer, and I don’t much like you. And if your words and actions are driven by bigotry, then you’re a bigot, and I don’t much like you either. And if you’re both a murderer and a bigot, then I like you even less than I like just a plain old murderer or a plain old bigot. Again, this is just my personal opinion and should not necessarily reflect how our laws should be written.

Assuming we can agree that murder/assault is (and should be) a crime while bigotry is not (and should not be) a crime, let’s consider premise #4. Even if someone believes that it is worse to commit a crime motivated by bigotry than it is to commit a crime in the absence of bigotry (as I do), does it really follow that the government should impose harsher sentences on people who commit murder/assault motivated by bigotry than on those people who commit murder/assault in the absence of bigotry?

My answer (after having given this subject a lot of thought) is no. And my reason for reaching this conclusion is that people should be punished on the basis of the crimes they commit (preferably crimes in which there is a victim–not victimless crimes such as drug use or prostitution) and not whether they were motivated by hatred against any particular group of people.

People who support hate crimes legislation (as I once did) are, whether they do so consciously or not, are implicitly criminalizing bigotry. We know this to be true because when you consider the case of the persona who commits murder motivated by bigotry and the person who commits murder in the absence of bigotry, the only difference between the two case is that the former was a bigot and acted out on his bigot while the latter was not a bigot (or, at least, demonstrated no evidence on bigotry).

Consider what Section 7 of H.R. 1592 (see above) does. A person who commits a crime A already has to serve X number of years in prison. But under Section 7, a person who commits crime A and was motivated by bigotry has to serve X plus Y years in prison, where Y may be anything up to ten years. This law effectively makes being motivated by bigotry a crime, and it shouldn’t be.

I’m not arguing that one’s motivations shouldn’t be considered in the sentencing process. I think that in certain instances, it should be considered (i.e. whether the crime was pre-meditated or not) to determine what sentence the person serves (first degree murder versus second degree murder).

I also believe that one’s motivations should be allowed in the courtroom to establish motive. If their is evidence that shows that the accused is a bigot who has acted out on his/her bigotry in the past, that should definitely be used in the courtroom to establish that the person has a motive.

But what I don’t believe is right is for the government to impose harsher sentences on people based upon what hateful thoughts towards a group of people motivated them to commit murder/assault. For one thing, bigotry–though I find it personally abhorrent–is not and should not be a crime. For another thing, it is EXTREMELY difficult to prove that a person was motivated by bigotry. The way hate crime laws work is that only those bigots who are stupid enough to be openly bigoted while they commit murder/assault will be prosecuted for a hate crimes law while bigots who are closeted in the bigotry while they commit the same crime will not be prosecuted for a hate crimes law.

How do prove that a hate crime occurred. Sometimes it’s fairly obvious (the perpetrator threatens an African American with the “n” word or a homosexual with the “f” word or spray paints a swastika on the car of a Jewish American). But in many cases (perhaps even the majority of cases) the perpetrator chooses his/her victim based upon the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation and leaves no evidence behind to prove that was the case. At some level, prosecuting people for hate-crimes involves guess work on the part of prosecutors who believe that they can read the minds and hearts of the accused.

Is a fair degree of white-on-black crime racially motivated? Probably. Is a fair degree of black-on-white crime racially motivated? Again, probably. But how do you prove it? The fact of the matter is that you can’t, and hate crimes laws becomes just a way of punishing the perpetrators of particularly egregious hate crimes while ignoring others.

Which brings me to an important point. What is the intent of passing hate crime laws? What is the effect of hate crime laws? Generally, politicians pass criminal laws for one of two reasons:

1) As a preventative measure–the logic being that if we have hate crime laws mandating longer sentence for people who commit crimes based upon bigotry, fewer hate crimes will occur, or

2) As a punitive measure–the logic being that if our government passes hate crimes laws mandating longer sentence for people who commit crimes based upon bigotry, we as a society have said that hate crimes are immoral and that perpetrators must be punished for their immorality.

Does reason #1 even apply in this case. Is there any empirical evidence to prove that enacting hate crime laws causes hate crimes to go down. I don’t think there is any evidence to prove this, and I think it would be extremely hard to conduct the necessary research to make this argument. Consider someone who commits murder. The murders commits this act, knowing full well that he will go to prison for doing this. Does anyone seriously think that a person who is willing to commit murder is going to suddenly change his mind because he’s afraid that if caught, he’ll be tried for committing a hate crime. It goes beyond the bounds of reason to believe that violent hate crimes will go down simply there are laws against committing hate crimes. What is more likely to occur is that violent criminals will simply better closet their bigotry in reaction to these laws (that is, assuming that a violent criminal cares about such laws in the first place).

In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that hate crime laws actually reduce crime, we are left to conclude that hate crime laws are purely penetrative measures–designed not to actually reduce hate crimes but as a way for politicians to show the country that they believe bigotry to be evil and are willing to punish some violent criminals more than others, simply because some violent criminals were motivated by bigotry.

Moreover, what is really gained by the victims of hate crimes by such laws? Have hate crime laws truly made life better for African-Americans? Have hate crime laws done anything to reduce anti-Semitism. Are gays and lesbians any closer to being accepted as humans who ought to live their lives that the way they (and not the government) want to live?

Hate crime legislation, though well-intentioned, does nothing to solve the root the problem that causes hate crimes, and that problem is hatred and intolerance. Hatred and intolerance are things that all human beings feel to one degree or another. Government cannot simply legislate hatred and intolerance out of existence.

When one person (or group of people) commits a violent act against another person (or group of people), the role of government is to punish the perpetrator based upon the crime he committed–NOT whatever thoughts happened to be floating around in his mind while (or moments before) he committed his crime.

Hate crimes legislation is driven by identity politics–the desire to use political action to advance the interests of members of a group because of a real or supposed shared identity or characteristics. Inevitably, such legislation has the practical (though perhaps unintended) effect of conferring certain rights on certain people rather than simply standing up for universal rights for all people.

I personally do not believe we should have laws mandating harsher penalties in cases in which the victim happens to be African-American, or Hispanic, or Jewish, or gay. And I extend this principle beyond victims who happen to be minorities. I don’t believe we should have laws mandating harsher penalties in which the victim happens to be a police officer or a politicians. Whether the victim of a violent crime is white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, gay, or is a police officer or politician–is one life more valuable than another? Do the families of victims murdered during a hate crime grieve any less that the families of victims who were not?

Granted, there are politicians who oppose hate crimes legislation due their own bigotry or to pander to bigots. But it would be a mistake to believe that everyone who opposes this legislation does so for the same reason. I know a number of libertarians who oppose hate crimes legislation, and for them, this has absolutely nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

President Bush is going to take a lot of flack from liberals and moderates for opposing this legislation, and perhaps some of it is justified if he relies upon flawed arguments to arrive at the correct conclusion. I just hope people carefully think this issue through–considering both the merits and flaws of this legislation before we criticize Bush for opposing it. Not being a big fan of Bush myself, I think there are numerous other issues in which he is far more deserving of criticism.

Given how few vetoes he’s made, he owes the universe a clear explanation why he would veto this bill.

> B … he just doesn’t think
> gays should have that protection

If he specifically does this to gays while leaving the other special classes in this bill alone, then he has failed.

C. It’s a sop to the Religious Right to make sure they vote in 2008 rather than abstain, le Pen style, and for that matter to other voters who may be conservative and who voted Democratic in 2006 because they were angered by the GOP’s behavior.

> if you agree that a Hate
> Crime is worse than just
> a Crime and you agree
> that attacking someone
> because of sexual
> orientation is wrong,
> then the law should pass.

It does not follow. The law as proposed is defective. That’s despite the argument proponents may make that it in no way is “thought police” in nature, and in fact allows freedom of expression, not only freedom of thought. (It is not a crime to hate someone wrongly, even if it is wrong to hate someone wrongly.) The law establishes protected classes, makes some more equal than others (leftist reverse discrimination). There are also valid concerns by the religious, because since the 1960s the First Amendment has been routinely misconstrued and used as a political weapon against the religious.

> But let’s not pretend
> that homophobia doesn’t
> play into opposition to
> this law.

I’m certain it does. But it’s preposterous to label everyone who has legitimate complaints about this law as homophobic.

I think the majority of the people that oppose the bill simply because they think ‘gays are bad’, are likely to be bigoted about Blacks, the disabled, etc., or at least some of the additional protected groups, not just gays.

Rarely do I meet bigots who manage to confine their irrational hatred to just one group.

But that’s not the issue to me now. There are indicators that say that Bush will veto the bill. OK, then that means he takes one of two roads, and if he were honest he would have to say which:

A- He opposes Hate Crimes legislation of any sort, for any group. That means he would favor removing hate crime legislation about race and religion. Fair enough, though he should clearly state this.

B- He doesn’t oppose hate crimes legislation, he just doesn’t think gays should have that protection. This would either stem from not believing that homophobia causes Gays to be disproportionately singled out for certain crimes or that he thinks opposition to homosexuality is good and therefore giving special consideration to homophobia driven crimes is like giving special consideration to crimes driven by hatred of adulterers.

Now, even if you believe that homophobia doesn’t cause Gays to be attacked more often than non-Gays by certain people that shouldn’t affect the decision to allow the law, if you agree that a Hate Crime is worse than just a Crime and you agree that attacking someone because of sexual orientation is wrong, then the law should pass. If there aren’t any homophobic attacks (HA!) then it will happily never have to be imposed.

But let’s not pretend that homophobia doesn’t play into opposition to this law. Yes, there are people (many here) who oppose ALL Hate Crime laws, but I’ll bet you ANYTHING that the people lobbying hardest against this law are *gasp* groups that virulently attack homosexuality. And since being Gay is BAD, you shouldn’t get “special” protection for it. They aren’t lobbying for the elimination of Hate Crimes laws that protect Blacks, or religious minorities, or disabled persons, they don’t want laws to protect Gays.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+veto+hate+crime+bill

[The Right, seizing the opportunity] The FETUS!!!

If it was because he was black, or gay, or he had brown hair, or he was taller than me, etc., that shouldn’t come into play.

I am not talking about political correctness, and I don’t think my post can be read that way. It is the thought-crime and protected class aspects that should be very worrisome, especially to anyone who has expressed deep concern over the loss of civil liberties under the current administration.

Stop for a second, and think about how laws like this will change and morph over 10, 20, 50 years. The opportunity for abuse and incremental expansion is truly frightening, and under the wrong administrations could even be turned back against the very people they are supposed to protect.

I fear that your strong support for laws like this may likely be more along the lines of ‘I have suffered in my life for who and what I am, so I want laws that give me extra vengeance against those who have wronged me.’

An understandable feeling, quite frankly, but a very bad basis for law.