Dear Readers, today I ask you for some help.
I need to further understand an issue that I found on my friend Chris’ blog today: www.redhogdiary.com. One of the top banners on this site read ”Good News! Senate Passes Needed Hate Crime Legislation.” I clicked on the link and I was directed to the following story: “Senate votes 60-39 for cloture on hate crimes legislation; voice vote adds Kennedy-Smith hate crimes amendment to Department of Defense authorization bill.
Now I’ll admit that I have not done a lot of research on Hate Crime legislation, and I am choosing not to do any research at this point, but rather ask you dear readers to convince me one way or the other whether this is a good idea.
My initial take is this: We already have laws to deal with these crimes, why the need for hate crime legislation? Look, I’m not saying that beating or killing someone because they are black, or gay, or whatever, isn’t about as ugly as ugly can be, but beating or killing someone for any reason is wrong, and we do have laws.
My second point will probably stir up the most debate, because I am going to take a risk at sounding very racist and/or homophobe, neither of which I consider myself. I know this bill is meant to protect minorities. Do you think it also should be used to prosecute a member of a minority against, say a white male?
And finally, since I am assuming that an act committed as a hate crime would carry a more severe penalty, what do you think should be the standard should be for determining if a crime is a hate crime. For example, if I beat a man who happens to be (insert protected class here), how would you determine that the reason I beat that man was do to the fact that he was, whatever he was. Sure, If I jump him screaming “We don’t like _____’s around here” it’s pretty clear, but beyond that, what is legal justification.
And for those of you who do think this is important legislation, let me ask what you think about this being attached to a Department of Defense authorization bill that the White House has threatened to veto (I am assuming the veto has nothing to do with the hate crimes attachment, but rather the DOD authorization bill). If in fact the Senate leadership felt this bill was so important, why attach it to an already troubled bill.
I know I have a small readership at this point, but I feel I have an intelligent readership, and I really want to hear your points on this issue. The ball is in your court….
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
We don't need specific laws for white males because the law works for white males. The reason this legislation was vitally necessary is because THE LAW DID NOT WORK EQUALLY FOR THE COVERED CLASSES! I know the law shoulda, woulda, coulda worked equally for all but it doesn't.
And typically a hate crime against a gay or a black or a whatever is not a crime against an individual but the group they represent. When groups of people are attacked for just belonging to a group that smells more of terrorism to me. But a hate crime designation seems significant enough for now.
The law also allows the federal government to intervene when local law enforcement see's the victims as "having it coming." which happens. Sometimes in so many words sometimes not but the zeal with which some localities persue prosocution is vastly different if the victim is "one of their own" or not.
I understand what you mean when you say that the law "works for white males", but I still need to wonder if you would support this law being used to recognize a hate crime against a white male. For example, would you support this bill being used against the "Jena 6"?
I support doing something to address the disarity issues regarding sentencing between races, but I see this legislation as a band-aid - meant to pander to these minorities without really fixing the issues.
"Pandering to these minorities"??? And if you decide to do your research you will see that this isn't primarily a sentancing issue at all. Straight white christians in positions of power have proved they won't bring the crimes to trial, will opt for lesser charges or won't convict in case after case after case.
And to answer your question, absolutley I would support hate crime resources and sentancing guidelines being applied in any case involving pre-meditated or pre-disposed violence against another demographic class. The thing is...American courts, as a general rule, have never had a problem convicting a minority class who would have the audacity to attack a straight white man.
I agree with everything you say Chris, and I think that there is a lot that needs to be done regarding conviction and sentencing disparity in this country. I guess my only real problem with this law is who decides when a crime is a hate crime? Like I said in my posts, sometimes it's crystal clear, such as with Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, or James Byrd, the black man that was chained to a truck and dragged to death in Jasper Texas.
Again, I think my real problem with this law is that it attacks an issue with a band-aid, rather than going at the heart of the issue itself. However, it's also not like we are ever going to completely eradicate racism, so perhaps this law will at least do some good, especially if it gets people talking.
Thanks for your input my friend, it is always appreciated.
And thank you for helping me think Bob. One thing about your concern for the hate crime charge...it is a seperate element that has to be proven in the trial procedings. The charge can be brought but a conviction of the crime does not guarantee the hate crime element. If indicted as a hate crime it does provide additional resources to the prosocution however.
Well that makes me feel better. Like I said in my post, I was specifically not seeking any information on this law until I heard from my readers.....er, reader. My big concern is that the left doesn't feel that this action is enough to calm their liberal white guilt. I think Affirmative Action is a similar act, that they think that makes up for past disparity, when all it is doing is A) setting up people to fail who are not ready for where affirmative action has placed them, or B) taking those who don't need Affirmative Action and having people question if they got where they are because of AA. I know that's a pretty generalistic view, and it's not the case in all instances, but it is in a lot.
Hate crime legislation helps punish racists (or sexist, or homophobes, or....), but I don't think it will do much to end racism et. al.. Just so they don't think this is going to end racism, and continue to work on this issue.
Post a Comment