US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[DGuller]

Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.

I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.  To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.

[PDH]

I have never felt threatened by anti-gay violence, therefore this is not needed.

[Martinus]

Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.

I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.  To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.

I don't think he was being serious. Surely, the claim is preposterous. Motivation is used all the time in determining the punishment.

[stjaba]

Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.

I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.  To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.

I think he's being sarcastic.*

Of course, motivation plays a role in determining punishment, but most of the time, deterrence is more of a factor than retribution. Think about the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder. In states that retain the difference, speaking generally, first degree murder is premeditated while second degree murder is in "the heat of the moment." First degree murder means you are death sentence eligible, while second degree murder means you may make it out of prison alive. Are both actions equally morally blameworthy? I'd say more or less,  yes, of course, dependent on the circumstances. Obviously, in both cases, the main motivation in both cases to kill another human. Certainly, there are outliers one way or the other. What separates the two punishments mainly is deterrence: The idea that someone considering murdering someone may be deterred by the fact that if they are caught, they could potentially be executed or sent to prison for life. Meanwhile, someone in the heat of the moment most likely is not considering the legal repercussions of what they are doing, and therefore deterrence is less effective.

Now moving onto hate crime legislation, I think either deterrence or a retribution framework could justify a harsher punishment. Hate crimes, whether murder or otherwise, are more likely to be pre-meditated than a "regular crime." If that is true, at least theoretically a hate crime legislation would serve as more of a deterrence than using existing law. I think anyone could agree that hate crimes should be deterred. Likewise, from a retributive standpoint, hate crimes, at least in many circumstances, are more morally blameworthy than their non-hate counterparts. Many crimes are separated by degrees based on moral blameworthiness. For instance, certain theft offenses divide into either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the dollar value of what was stolen. That does not violate due process, that just how the law works. For the record, as I think Malthus suggested earlier, it would make more sense for hate crime legislation to operate on a victim selected by his or her "category" basis, as opposed to legislation simply recording possible categories.

----

*I know he's being sarcastic. Of course, motivation plays a role. I just read a case in which a 74 year old received five years probation and community service for strangling her 90 year old husband chronically ill husband. The wife had been taking of her husband for some time, and finally decided to perform a mercy killing. From what information I read, this wasn't simply a case of assisted suicide either. In any case, based on the facts, it seemed like a first degree murder charge would have been appropriate, but instead she was charged with second degree, and after pleading or being found, (I can't remember) guilty, the judge gave her that sentence.

[Strix]

Hate crimes do no such thing.  They add extra penalties to criminals who paint whole segments of lawful society with a broad stroke of the brush.  Your argument is quite absurd, the motivation of a KKK member lynching a black guy and a sex offender molesting a child are radically different.

Thank you for so eloquently making my point. Hate crime legislation adds extra penalties to criminals above and beyond what is normal. The Sex Offender Registry adds extra penalties to criminals above and beyond what is normal.

You are correct. The motivation is different. A KKK member hates his victim because they are Black, Jewish, Yankee, Liberal, or what not. A sex offender loves their victim because they are young. One hates and the other loves but both are equally punished by adding extra penalties.

The problem really is a simple one. Discretion has largely been taken out of the hands of the Judges and it has been replaced by "guidelines". This was done to make sure that everyone received equal protection and treatment in the Courts. Guess what? Some people don't want to see equal treatment in the Courts. So, politicians create extra penalties to add to the "guidelines" they already inflicted on the judicial system. This creates the perception that the law is no longer unbiased which in turns makes those effected most by the new laws upset. And this makes it that much harder for minorities to be accepted.

[Scipio]

Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.

He he.  He's right Speesh.

Which begs the question of why there has to be a special list at all.  Why not treat all hate crimes the same?

Eh, this was probably an easier way to address the issue. After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.

Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period.  As are lots of civil libertarians.

[Faeelin]

Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period.  As are lots of civil libertarians.

I acknowledge that principle; I disagree with it, but dont' see it as a big issue one way or another. But the current talking point of the GOP in Congress is that they are okay with hate crimes for "immutable characteristics" like race and religion, but not for sexual orientation.

Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

"All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."

Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5381671.shtml

It is true that some Republican Congressmen do oppose all hate crimes, but that's not my real objection.

[Malthus]

Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period.  As are lots of civil libertarians.

I acknowledge that principle; I disagree with it, but dont' see it as a big issue one way or another. But the current talking point of the GOP in Congress is that they are okay with hate crimes for "immutable characteristics" like race and religion, but not for sexual orientation.

See to me their position makes no sense. One could argue either for or against the very existance of hate crimes legislation; but once it exists, it is surely "more fair" to extend its reach rather than to restrict it. Whether or not those characteristics are "mutable" isn't a good criterion - would it be "okay" (as in not covered) for Muslims to go around attacking Christian converts, because they chose to be Christian? 

One could for example perfectly well argue both that hate crimes laws should not exist, and at the same time, that if they do exist more groups (such as gays) ought to be added.

Other groups (those who like the Star Wars Christmas Special?) can certainly agitate that them being left off the list is unfair, and if there is any serious threat, they would I think have a point. 

[Faeelin]

See to me their position makes no sense. One could argue either for or against the very existance of hate crimes legislation; but once it exists, it is surely "more fair" to extend its reach rather than to restrict it. Whether or not those characteristics are "mutable" isn't a good criterion - would it be "okay" (as in not covered) for Muslims to go around attacking Christian converts, because they chose to be Christian? 

It makes perfect sense, if you think homosexuality is a morally wrong choice.

You basically summed up my feelings on hate crimes, BTW.

[citizen k]

One could for example perfectly well argue both that hate crimes laws should not exist, and at the same time, that if they do exist more groups (such as gays) ought to be added.

Other groups (those who like the Star Wars Christmas Special?) can certainly agitate that them being left off the list is unfair, and if there is any serious threat, they would I think have a point.

Thus the entire concept flies in the face of equal protection under the law.

[Malthus]

One could for example perfectly well argue both that hate crimes laws should not exist, and at the same time, that if they do exist more groups (such as gays) ought to be added.

Other groups (those who like the Star Wars Christmas Special?) can certainly agitate that them being left off the list is unfair, and if there is any serious threat, they would I think have a point.

Thus the entire concept flies in the face of equal protection under the law.

Sure, to the extent some person is attacked for belonging to a group identity not covered by the law.

The more groups are added to the "list", the less this is true. If a person gets extra punishment for attacking a Jew because he's a Jew but not for attacking a gay because he's a gay, that's an affront to equal protection.

The best would be to make the law quite general, as Marty discussed above. Failing that, keep adding groups until everyone actually at risk is covered.

The fact is that people are reasonably frequently attacked for being members of some identifiable religion, for being of some disfavoured race (disfavoured by the attacker at least), and for being gay. If there is any other groups of people frequently attacked for their visible identity, it would make sense to add them, too.

[Strix]

The fact is that people are reasonably frequently attacked for being members of some identifiable religion, for being of some disfavoured race (disfavoured by the attacker at least), and for being gay. If there is any other groups of people frequently attacked for their visible identity, it would make sense to add them, too.

Do we add the very young? the old? handicapped people? rich people? homeless people?  All these groups are targeted for who and what they represent. So, where do you stop?

[Capetan Mihali]

The slope!  It's so slippery!

[Faeelin]

Do we add the very young? the old? handicapped people? rich people? homeless people?  All these groups are targeted for who and what they represent. So, where do you stop?

How about increasing the penalty if the primary motivation for the attack is a character of the victim, and not something like material gain?

[Admiral Yi]

The fact is that people are reasonably frequently attacked for being members of some identifiable religion, for being of some disfavoured race (disfavoured by the attacker at least), and for being gay.

I haven't kept up with my hate crime stats.  How frequently are we talking?