When a Blogger Jumps the Shark
Familiarity does indeed sometimes breed contempt, but I’ve had a case of the ass lately over Captain Ed Morrissey, whose usually thoughtful and reliably conservative musings at Captain’s Quarters command my respect, if not necessarily agreement.
In the Captain’s carefully proscribed orbit, Democrats are always ducking responsibility and the corner is just about to be turned in Iraq. Monotonously inaccurate, but then my glasses have clear lenses.
But the Captain crossed the line today in a post on the just-passed hate-crimes bill, which President Bush says he will veto because, in so many words, it’s okay to beat up on gays.
So where does the Captain stand on this most serious issue? Well, he’s running for cover. His hiding place: The beyond stoopid assertion that if gays are protected, then
. . . while we’re at it, let’s add in gender identity, because transsexuals get hated, too. In fact, let’s put gender on the list, too, because some men hate women, some women hate men, and some hate their own kind. Do people actually hate others based on disability? Well, just to be safe, we’ll put that on the list too.
But wait — we haven’t fully explored hate yet. Why not class hatred? Poor people hate rich people; why can’t we make that a federal crime, too, as well as in reverse? How about the obese? Some people really have irrational hostility to the obese and act upon it. Why won’t Congress ppotect the overweight? Short people? The elderly? Republicans? Democrats? Postal carriers?
The Captain’s argument that gays are covered under existing laws misses the point that they are routinely discriminated against in the application of existing laws. Perhaps this was an attempt at having a good laugh, but I think not. Beating up people because of their sexual orientation is a singularly unfunny matter.
53 Responses to “When a Blogger Jumps the Shark”
I am sympathetic to hate crimes but I would be satisfied if legal penalties were significant to be a deterrent to any form of violence towards others.
Reverse discrimination and special classes created by law are wrong. You and others like you holding the incorrect position have been corrected numerous times already.
I do not often agree with Cap’n Ed but I also have concerns about how the standard for a “hate based” crime is going to be set. I know there are legal precedents for determining criminal state of mind/intent and there are obviosuly some crimes that are patently based on hatred of a group/class/gender. Its the crimes that are not so obvious that are going to be touchy and, I believe, ripe for abuse of this standard.
Society benefits more from few, iron clad laws than from lots of poorly written ones.
Absolutely. A goodly number of laws regarding voting, housing, wages and other areas would be unnecessary if there was not patterns of discrimination — or in this instance physical intimidation and harm — that were antisocial if not downright destructive.
As it is, I believe that there are too damned many laws and, while we’re at it, too damned many lawyers. But this is an area where I absolutely support a new law.
This issue has been raised three or four times on TMV in the past few days, and there seems to be a strong consensus from a lot of us who do not tend to agree on issues that this is just plain bad law.
I am not going to get drawn into repeating the case against, but there are some very compelling posts in the comments sections of those previous articles that should be read and considered.
Shaun,
The Cap’n has added an update to his column where he takes umbrage at the way you’ve creatively interpreted his words. You may want to check it out if you haven’t already seen it.
Oh, and my take on this? If the problem is, as you suggest, Shaun, inadequate enforcement of existing laws, then how exactly does it help to create a new law?
CStanley:
Thank you for the tip. I did not, of course, accuse the Captain of saying that it was okay to beat up on gays.
What I said was that his argument was silly. I stand by that assessment.
CStanley:
All I can say in response is what I said in response to Paul’s comment.
A goodly number of laws regarding voting, housing, wages and other areas would be unnecessary if there were not patterns of discrimination — or in this instance physical intimidation and harm — that were antisocial if not downright destructive.
Well, if the bill were about discrimination you might have a point, Shaun, but this proposed legislation is about violent crime which is already a crime. And you left out the good part of Ed’s argument, which is that motive itself is not a crime (which is what this legislation seeks to change).
If there are problems with the proper application of existing laws, wouldn’t it make more sense to address those problems directly?
As Shaun said, there are too many damn laws already. We need fewer laws that are clearer and enforced without bias. This latest bit of PC-ness only makes matters worse, for the reason C Stanley just gave.
Discrimination is but one example of why some laws are ineffective and others have to be enacted that specifically address the failings.
It would be a fine day if all existing laws were enforced equally no matter the jurisdiction, social standing, race, gender and sexual peference of the victim, but we know that is effectively a fiction.
An imperfect fix, which I acknowledge that the hate-crimes bill is, is better than no fix at all.
I admit I don’t know what a good law should precisely say in this regard, but I notice that whenever the nation tries to confront the injustice suffered by some of us, the same sorts of doomsday arguments surface against the exercise with predictable frequency. Give women the vote and the next thing you know, their pets will be voting, too.
I’ve tried, but failed, to understand what is so personally threatening about admitting out loud that there have been and still are the disadvantaged, the disenfranchized and the targeted victims among us. I can understand debates about how best to deal with these problems, but the debates are, instead, about choosing between attempting to do something and doing nothing.
They say wealth accumulation is not a zero sum game. It appears that social justice is treated like one, though. If my neighbor is protected, then I lose protection somehow. It seems to be a choice between being inclusive or exclusive as a society.
Domajot, excellent comment.
I think, certain Republicans, social conservatives and evangelicals don’t want laws written that protect gays because it then it legitimizes homosexuality, which they are deeply afraid of.
They’ve also dug themselves into a whole with the gay marriage issue, now they can’t all of the sudden care about gay rights without being called a flip-flopper.
I checked Morrissey out the other day because everyone says he’s a thinking man’s conservative. The first post led with a factual falsehood that the conclusion was entirely based on, which the commentariat dove into. Between that and the annoying comic, I doubt I’ll be back soon.
Political Correctness.
If we don’t like the answer hide behind political correctness and point fingers at anyone who disagrees and call them bigots and homophobes.
Another Left wing snow job.
What part of this Bullshit dont you people understand.
Beating anybody up is a crime. Killing anyone is a crime.
Am I missing something? Is there a nice way to murder someone and a mean way? Why should it be more ILLEGAL to kill a gay or a black or a redneck then say a housewife or a mother or a pharmacist.
You guys need a reality check. Life is NOT all about YOU. Life is all about ALL OF US.
Just a random thought I had…Wouldn’t it be simpler and more fair to create an Organized and/or Premeditated Violence law? Then all 1 on 1 crimes would be the same but two or more people working together solely for the premeditated purpose of harming or killing someone receive a stiffer penalty?
It needs fleshing out but I’m on my lunch break.
Somebody, the reason this law is specific is because it is needed. There are many people, law or no law unfortunately, who think if a person is different in some way then that law does not apply to them. Yes, life is about all of us, but since there are still a good number of us who think it is open season on some groups of people, then it is necessary.
And it is not making it more illegal. It is drawing attention to the fact that this country has a problem, and our government is passing the necessary laws to not only acknowledge the existence of that problem, but actually try and deal with it.
As long as there are people who consider minority groups as second class citizens, such laws will be necessary.
Then, how does this change anything? Those who don’t believe the law applies to them, or choose to ignore it, still will.
This is like ‘double super-secret probation’. Nonsensical on its face, and it will not change anyone’s behavior.
Like it or not, Bush got it right a few years ago then they sentenced those guys to death – how much more can the be punished? Dig them up and kill them again?
It is almost heading back to the Medieval days. Disembowelment, followed by broken on the wheel, then drawn and quartered, head placed on a pike, and the body burned.
Beating anybody up is a crime. Killing anyone is a crime. Am I missing something? Is there a nice way to murder someone and a mean way?
Bingo. As Cap’n Ed put it (and as Shaun notably omitted):
Or, as the late Eric Arthur Blair so famously put it, “Some animals are more equal than others.”
Actually, it should go a long way to changing behavior. First off, especially with the publicity, it makes it known that such actions against any group are not acceptable. It also says to the victim, or witnesses, speak out. Something will be done about this. Not to mention the fact that it will allow society to mobilize against such crimes and punish the perpetrators rather than just shrugging it off or ignoring it all together.
More importantly it tells law enforcement they actually have to help these people rather than ignoring it or covering it up. It will help because still today even there are instances of people not speaking out because they are afraid that law enforcement will do nothing about the situation and they could be targeted again, or become a target.
Image how the law affects no tonly the characteristics of the victim but of the perpetrators and the location of the crime.
Image a gay Democratic staffer who lives in Dupont Circle in DC. If he is attacked by a couple of drunk white guys in Georgetown, it is a hate crime and the crime will probably become federal and a large amount of resources will be put into the prosecution along with a majority white federal jury.
If the same staffer is attacked by a couple of career felon blacks in Adams-Morgan, the crime will not be considered a hate crime, it will be handle by the incompetent DC judicial system and if it ever goes to trial, it will be in front of a majority black jury in DC municiple court who probably will not look kindly on a gay white victim.
Why have such potential differences in the law?
Shaun, I do not read the blog refernced, but the man cleaned your clock, both intellectually and honestly.
He states, ‘Motivation is not a crime; it is a component of a crime. Whether one beats a man to death because of a drug deal gone bad or an irrational prejudice, the victim is just as dead either way, and the crime is the same. It should make no difference what motivated the assault except to the extent that it proves guilt. What this legislation does is create special classes of victims that get a higher priority on justice than others. That’s wrong regardless of the sympathetic nature of these victims.’
That’s a long way from what you counter: ‘But the Captain crossed the line today in a post on the just-passed hate-crimes bill, which President Bush says he will veto because, in so many words, it’s okay to beat up on gays.’
Then you claim you did not state the Capt says it’s ok to whack gays. But, you state that Bush says so, and that the Capt. (wink and nod) agrees.
If I kill you for monetary gain, for boffing my woman, for raping my daughter, to sodomize your corpse, to pay off a debt, to satisfy a Godfather, to see if I have the rocks to kill, because I hate your race/gender/sexuality, big nose, or because you are a liberal, or because I don’t like that you distorted this other blogger’s words to argue with a strawman, and not the real man, I am guilty of murder any way you slice it. What is so difficult with that.
Hate crimes are silly because it says that a queer bashing victim’s lief was innately worth more, and the crime mor disgusting than, say, a rapist who kills and leaves a naked little girl in the woods with a branch shoved up her vagina. Is a Klansman or terrorist any more repugnant than a hitman or serial killer?
Intent means nothing in art, and crime as well. Only results count.
The score: Capt: 1, Mullen: 0.
This actually touches on the one area that there might be room for legislation for this problem (to whatever degree the problem exists: presumably it does in certain locations). Instead of the perpetrators of a ‘hate crime’ getting double punishment, perhaps we should have more stringent laws against those who are supposed to enforce the laws if they do not do so? I’m not sure to what degree this already exists, but it should be a punishable offense if police officers don’t prosecute to the fullest extent or if any other public official obstructs justice in any way due to discriminatory practices.
Ahem!
Tully said:
Not so. It means that someone like me who has heretofore not been treated justly due to prejudice has a better chance of receiving justice.
Since the Hate Crimes laws already exist, those who oppose adding protection for folks like me to them are protecting bigotry (they seem to prefer thugs to queers). If someone opposes Hate Crimes laws on principle, they should be trying to remove the existing laws rather than protecting gay bashers.
See Andrew Sullivan’s column yesterday:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/hate_crimes_and_1.html
Holly, I’d dispense with special-treatment laws like what are being sought, and yes, what exist already — malicious intent already is an issue that is relevent when assessing the seriousness of a crime and how it should be punished.
Now on the other hand, what about Civil Rights Act legislation and problems such as with accomodation in public places and in employment? There is no unlimited right of a business owner to refuse to hire GBLT family members in this country, or at least there should not be, any more than there is such an unlimited right with blacks. I’m thinking of the US Civil Rights Act-derived equivalent of the Equal Employment Act overseas (Ireland) or Employment Equality Regulations in the UK — or something even bigger, to which I allude at the end of this paragraph. I believe the “wrongful thought” laws being currently sought are a dead end (plenty of us have explained its defects) but something like the employment law may be something to pursue. Or did you give up on such a thing after the failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?
P.S. I’m not trying to play bait-and-switch here.
CS: I may not agree with you much, but something like this in lieu of all hate crime laws would, IMO, be more effective. Every person deserves and is entitled to equal protection under the law, meaning all that are wronged under the law should have it enforced as appropriate without discrimination. The main downside, however, is that those involved in law enforcement tend to protect their own. I once read that rates of domestic abuse among spouses of police officers are about the highest of any profession. If law enforcement personnel are not willing to prosecute their own, then how could this law be enforced? It’s a real conundrum…
CS: ‘Instead of the perpetrators of a ‘hate crime’ getting double punishment, perhaps we should have more stringent laws against those who are supposed to enforce the laws if they do not do so?’
I agree, and have long argued the way to enforce across the board enforcement is to hold thos charged with such accountable. As example, if I kill someone- for bogotry, gain, revenge, etc. and am not prosecuted, then the prosecutor who fails should face the same penalties I should have. We may get less DA’s, but far better ones.
Similarly, in the Duke Rape BS- that Nifong shd go to jail for as long as someone who perjures themselves- like the ‘victim’ did- would serve.
Holly: ‘Not so. It means that someone like me who has heretofore not been treated justly due to prejudice has a better chance of receiving justice.’
No it does not. The enforcement of the law means that. Hate crimes merely mean if I kill you ‘cuz you my nigga bitch’ It’s more serious than if I kill you cuz you were two-timing me with Chico down the block, or because I wanted to inherit the large bank acct you have, that you left in my name for some reason, or because you just happened to be unlucky enough if I went ‘Cho-stal’ and killed you and a few dozen others because I was sniffing too much glue, or the like. Any way you’re dead and I’m a murderer. Small comfort that the law says I’m more abominable because your skin color, religion, or sexual tatses, did not mirror mine. Than the other reasons.
Anna, I once knew a NYC cop who protected his pedophile serial killer brother for thirty five years because he was kin. Both brothers should have been drawn and quartered. yet, had you and I provided real justice, we’d be the bad guys.
Like I said, there are a thousand reasons to not do anything about anything and just pretend everything is hunky dorey.
First of all, the way I understand it, this would not even introduce a new concept in law or law enforcement. It would simply expand the protections given for minorities of gender, age, race and etc.
It’s not a new Constitution or even an Amendment. At most, it’s a clarification.
What is so scary about that?
I meant to link to THIS Andrew Sullivan post as well:
Hate Crimes and Double Standards
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/hate_crimes_and.html
Many times these crimes are not pursued on a local level because of anti-gay bias. As I understand it, whoever chose not to prosecute because of individual prejudice could be themselves prosecuted by the feds. It adds a layer of enforcement to protect civil rights of hate crime victims.
Cosmo, CS, etc. -
Maybe there should be a better approach to prosecution and law enforcement. It’s not happening, however.
Are you saying it’s better to just ignore the problem in the hope it’ll go away?
We have to deal with what we got, not what we hope to have in the next century.
I think we did a pretty good job of covering this issue the other day in the comments section under Holly’s post. I also covered it at my blog. I haven’t read Captain Ed’s post that Shaun’s referring to, but I can assure him that not everyone who opposes hate crimes legislation is a right-wing conservative who someone who think’s “it’s okay to beat up on gays.” One can oppose hate crimes legislation on purely libertarian grounds–that is–that that the role of government is to criminalize the violent offense itself and not the motives that led to the crime.
NR said: “…oppose hate crimes legislation on purely libertarian grounds–..”
Oh good, now we have a political philosophy in place, so the problem is solved.
Other labels conveniently crop up: political correctness, etc.
If you can’t deal with it, can’t solve it and can’t even improve it, just stick a handy label on it and forget it.
Problem solved.
And yes, this is sarcasm.
Thats the whole point.
Kill a straight guy. Its murder.
Kill a gay guy. Its murder.
This is nothing more then the left trying to get more of their left wing agenda mainstreamed as being more important then the rest of the USA’s agenda.
Its all about them. Their deaths are more meaningful then someone elses death. Say if a conservative Banker is killed. Who cares. Now if a gay guy is killed its a crime of the century.
Where Im from its agin the law to kill either one.
What a joke. Motivation means nothing? Negligent homicide. Manslaughter. Second degree murder. First degree murder. First degree murder with special circumstances. Motive and intent mean a great deal in our system even if hate crimes are ignored. That having been said, there will always be problems in our system. You can have police and prosecutors perfectly willing to enforce the law and run into a jury that has some of those wonderful people who voted for state constitutional amendments that didn’t simply stop gay marriage but also stopped lesser benefits for gay relationships. Somehow I don’t buy their claims to not being just a touch bigoted against gays when they do that. So it isn’t going to be perfect. Does that mean we shouldn’t try? As far as the argument concerning “special classes” goes, don’t the prejudices of the larger group tend to create them, not the recognition of those prejudices?
Doma,
I don’t think I said anything about ignoring a problem (in fact I suggested a way that I think a remedy might be explored). If I don’t agree with a particular solution to a problem, please don’t assume that this means that I don’t think the problem is real. Only rarely is that the case and when it is, I’ll clearly state that I don’t think the problem is significant. Otherwise, you can take me at my word that I’m addressing whether or not I think the particular solution being discussed is appropriate and whether or not it would work.
Hate crime legislation are useful for crimes other than murder, when the intent of a crime is more serious than the act committed.
If you burn a cross on someone’s lawn, what crime is that? In absence of a hate crime provision, it’s just vandalism, maybe malicious mischief. A hate crime provision on the books, allows what would otherwise be a minor property crime to be addressed for what it actually is: an act of intimidation meant to terrify. Ditto things like defacing cemetaries, houses of worship, and meeting centers.
OK, I hate religious people so I beat a gay minister, hate crime or not? I hate gays so I pick out a gay minister, but claim the beating was over his religion to cover my hate crime, hate crime or not? I am under the care of a mental health professional for anger management and beat a gay minister, can I use that fact to defend against a hate crime charge? I attack someone who is gay but also two people that are minorities, both attacks hate crimes for different reasons or just random acts of violence? In short how do you determine the actual motive? It is one thing to bring charges against a member of a hate group like the KKK, but I doubt most of the cases will be so cut and dry. And then there is always the flip side to this, as a prosecutor I threaten people with hate crime charges to get them to confess to other charges.
CS-
This is what I asked in my comments regarding suggestions like yours that propose a better way: Do you see any movement to have your better solution installed?
Now I am adding further, that if a law of the type we are already accustomed to gets this much negative reaction, I can’t reasonably foresee that new measures, requiring much larger adjustments could be accepted.
doma,
Actually what I’m saying is that I think in many cases the kind of law I’m talking about is already in place too, but we have to look at the enforcement side of all of it. So I don’t really agree that I’m proposing something that would require larger adjustments. I’m not aware of any movement toward a more universal standard of punishment for law enforement officials who don’t prosecute fairly, no. But I still think that is the right way to go and I don’t see it’s more difficult to do the right thing in this case vs. doing it the wrong way (my opinion of course).
Jim,
You are right about the motive issue but my understanding is that in those cases the motive is exculpatory to some degree, not that the motive itself is being punished. In other words, murder one is the full 100% guilt sentence while the other classifications are a way of assigning some degree of less than 100% guilt. So the problem that I see with this type of legislation is that what is trying to be done is to assign more than 100% guilt.
I think CaseyL makes a good point about crimes of intimidation. So why not make those acts crimes if intent to intimidate can be proven? In those cases the act itself would not be a serious crime at all, so it makes sense to make it one. But in the case of assault, battery, murder, etc, the violent act is already a serious one which can be prosecuted to the full extent. It’s not any more necessary to explore motives of bigotry than it is to explore why a woman kills her husband for being a jerk vs. killing him to try to claim insurance money, etc. The crime itself there of murder in the first degree is the 100% guilty position which can be prosecuted. In those other cases that CaseyL is talking about, the attempt to intimidate really is a separate crime in itself but I just don’t see that in cases where a murder is committed.
JS
OK, I hate religious people so I beat a gay minister, hate crime or not?
Actually under the hate crime laws on the books right now, since the late 1960′s, if you beat up a minister you’d be guilty of a hate crime since religion is already a protected category. So let’s say said minister is in a predominately atheist area and the police and local AG do nothing about the attack. Under the current law they can seek to have justice brought in from the federal level. If the minister is attacked for being gay and there is similar non-movement on the part of local enforcement agencies then there is absolutely no recourse for that person.
I’ve read far too many news stories about police doing nothing when gay people are beaten up to dismiss this is a theoretical debate. If I was beaten to pulp and the local law enforcement did nothing about it you’d bet I’d want some way of seeking justice within the system. This law is just bringing parity of enforcement on violent crimes against gay people, nothing more nothing less. This mechanism is already in place and has been for 40 years. For some reason the right sees adding gays to the list as a constitutional crisis, as if giving the same coverage we give religion and race creates some totally new legal framework.
Doma: Both CS and I stated we are for enforcement and penalties for non-enforcement. So, when you state, ‘Are you saying it’s better to just ignore the problem in the hope it’ll go away?’ you are either not getting what we stated, or using a strawman.
Jim: ‘What a joke. Motivation means nothing? Negligent homicide. Manslaughter. Second degree murder. First degree murder. First degree murder with special circumstances. Motive and intent mean a great deal in our system even if hate crimes are ignored.’
Manifestly, I, CS, and all the posters are talking of the sort of crime presented in the post- premeditated violence. Therefore, there are no degrees of murder applicable. It would all be 1st Degree murder, not two drunks slugging it out, and one acc. killing the other.
Since such situations were not referenced, and we were only discussing a specific act, premeditated murders- be they motivated by hate, avarice, jealousy, etc. the claim that motivation does not matter, but the result, is plain. You are either misreading the whole thread, or strawmanning, for there was no other way to get into the convo.
Casey: ‘If you burn a cross on someone’s lawn, what crime is that? In absence of a hate crime provision, it’s just vandalism, maybe malicious mischief. A hate crime provision on the books, allows what would otherwise be a minor property crime to be addressed for what it actually is: an act of intimidation meant to terrify.’
And the only acts of vandalism and arson are in regards to hate crimes? No, the vast majority are not hate crimes. As with murder because of hatred, the end result matters. Hate crime legislation is simply superfluous, and a politcal end, not a law enforcement need.
I wd like any person to explain the ethical calculus they use to explain how a Ted Bundy or Mafia Hitman or a spree killer like Cho is somehow less abominable than a Klansman at a necktie party, a terrorist with a hardon and explosives or Tim McVeigh? Go ahead.
If you cannot, then you are simply giving in to political pandering tomake yourself feel better and that something is ‘being done’, because as even supporters have stated, in places with these provisions, enforcement is still spotty. Excess laws that are not enforced are no solution. Therefore, enforcing what’s already there is.
Grognard- exc. pt. Also, if I kill you simply because I hate the way you look at my lady- hate crime?
CS: ‘So the problem that I see with this type of legislation is that what is trying to be done is to assign more than 100% guilt.’
Exactly. These would not be crimes- but Super-crimes. It’s also why ‘War Crimes’ are questionable. If I’m a guard at Dachau, and send 200 people to death, I’m guiltier than McVeigh?
Mr Mod: ‘Actually under the hate crime laws on the books right now, since the late 1960’s, if you beat up a minister you’d be guilty of a hate crime since religion is already a protected category.’
In what part of the country? In the 3 states I’ve lived in ‘taint so. The only ‘protected’ or ‘super’ grooups, for which penalties are greater than killing Joe Average, are law enforcement officers.
BTW: Was Shaun’s post’s title self-reflexive? I.e.- has he skipped over the fish?
Cosmo and CS-
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO ACHIEVE ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR NON-ENFORCEMENT?
For the third or fourth time: This may be a better way, but it’s no way at all without a means to achieve it.
cosmoetica asked, “n what part of the country? In the 3 states I’ve lived in ‘taint so. The only ‘protected’ or ’super’ grooups, for which penalties are greater than killing Joe Average, are law enforcement officers.”
Read the text of the Federal Hate Crimes statute that has been on the books since 1969 excerpted here: “unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person’s race, color, religion or national origin.”
All that is being done is adding sexual orientation and gender to that list and establishing monetary set asides of $10 million a year to help local law enforcement enforce their own laws on the matter. If you are against the concept in its entirety, as nicrivera, then advocate for the repeal of the 1969 legislation. If however you are saying that you don’t want to amend it to provide the same protections for gay people, then what is your justification for that? Either way, the constitutional crisis that the right wing is trying to fabricate around this is a red herring since this has been on the books for almost 40 years and it applies only to violent crimes.
Doma: ‘Cosmo and CS-
‘HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO ACHIEVE ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR NON-ENFORCEMENT?
For the third or fourth time: This may be a better way, but it’s no way at all without a means to achieve it.’
By getting honest and honorable people who want to extirpate lack of enforcement. It’s that simple. But adding laws that even supporters admit are not enfoced across the board puts cops in the role of philosphers, not cops.
Mr Mod: Look how broad that language is. The fact is that it is not applied to whites who are beaten by blacks. Was Bernhard Goetz a victime of a hate crime?
Your claim was that a preacher that is attcked by an anti-religiot would be protected. Would he not be protected by the law sans collar?
As others have admitted, a law as broadly defined as that is virtually, and actually, meaningless. And yes, I do oppose it for similar reasons as Rivera.
If one looks at cases of ‘cop killers’ though, you will see that uniformly they get tiougher sentences than the murder of Joe Average. I oppose that as well, but practically speaking, they are the only group that currently gets singled out as being more heinously killed than the little old lady gunned down because she refuses to give up her purse.
Cosmo proposed:
“By getting honest and honorable people who want to extirpate lack of enforcement. It’s that simple.”
———
So, then, you are proposing to just wait until these honorable people change the ways of the world by the force of persuasion.
Sorry, I don’t have enough faith in good triumphing over evil just because it’s good, etc.
This imperfect law would accomplish at least one real, actual thing. It would proclaim that yes, we have a problem, and yes, we are taking it seriously.
It would move up the starting point from which the honorable can start persuading.