Trackbacks & Pings

1. Condensed soup: all the shit you want with some excuses, natch « FemBot on 24 Nov 2009 at 5:39 pm

   [...] crime legislation? Well, I definitely have a lot to learn about the prison industrial complex, but Racialicious is there to fill in the [...]

Comments

1. Jadey wrote:

   Thank you for posting this. I was torn during the Angie Zapata trial because of the importance of official recognition of transgender status as a motivation for someone to be murdered (geez, *understatement*), and because I am very familiar with how very much our criminal justice measures (okay, I am in Canada, but there are a lot of philosophical and technical similarities with the States) perpetuate oppression, either by upholding and obscuring the benefits of privilege or targeting and attacking already-oppressed people (or, hell, both, most of the time). Legal victories are fraught with deadly compromises when the system itself remains standing.

   Fundamentally, our criminal justice systems are incapable of delivering justice, and, in fact, are largely designed not to. They are a mix of bureacratic inertia, authoritarian controls, system justification, unfounded conviction, resentment, and the occasional (and largely incidental) moment of relief. Harsh punitive measures yield negligible short-term gain and zero long-term benefits. The entire mainstream mentality about criminal justice is self-defeating and both philosophically and logistically unsound. It is founded on othering and dehumanization. It is impossible to imagine these structures existing in or being supportive of a non-oppressive society.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶

2. Natasha wrote:

   These are really important and valid points, thanks for bringing them up.

   In addition to these ideas hate crime legislation can easily get us into the territory of thought-crime.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶

3. Brooke wrote:

   I’ve always felt like there needs to be a balance between the criminal justice system understanding the importance of what’s behind these crimes while at the same time not perpetuating more injustice, including some that is unintended.

   The enhanced sentencing is what gets me the most. I think it’s harmful to pretend that this actually actively protects anyone, that it stops any crime from occurring. It’s like the death penalty – if you want punishment and retribution and revenge and the satisfied feeling of hurting someone who’s done something wrong, enhanced sentencing and the death penalty fit in that category. If you want to do meaningful work to prevent crimes and change social attitudes towards marginalized groups…the criminal justice system is just NOT the place to turn.

   But it’s hard to talk about this among progressive groups, because saying “I’m against hate crime legislation” seems like saying, “I don’t think these groups need protection.” I do; I just don’t think they’re getting it here.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶

4. Mike wrote:

   Definitely an informative article – I’m glad more people are bringing attention to the fact that the prison system is a BUSINESS, and quite a corrupt one at that.

   My only criticism would be this quote:

   “Our penalties are harsher and sentences longer than they are anywhere else on the planet”

   This smacks of hyperbole – I would need to see serious evidence before I believed this claim, starting with a comparison of American justice with systems in North Korea and China.

   Claims like this distract from the real meat of the argument and undermine genuine dialogue with potential opponents.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶

5. erika wrote:

   I don’t know if they’ve explicitly come out against US hate crimes legislation, being based in Canada, but Montreal’s Prisoner Correspondence Project does lots of good work around queer & trans prison issues & against the prison industrial complex, from a prison abolition perspective. http://www.prisonercorrespondenceproject.com/?page_id=514

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 5:40 pm ¶

6. kamala wrote:

   thank you thank you thank you: well said.

   This is one of the best posts ever! I have always felt that to support hate crime legislation reinforces the powers of the government in the worst sort of way. And it’s such an unpopular position to take; people look at me like i’m a traitor when I suggest that we should rely on the laws already on the books.

   Power to the people should not always mean yet *more* power to the government.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 5:40 pm ¶

7. Slush wrote:

   I agree HCL increased sentences don’t work as a deterrent, but I don’t think that’s the purpose of them either. The purpose is to make the law recognize the particular injuries and issues of bias crimes and their effects on historically marginalized groups. This is the heterosexual white power structure actually acknowledging the perspectives and lived experiences of minorities, and that’s pretty damn important. Even if it is done within an appalling and corrupt system, rather than addressed in a more radical fashion.

   I haven’t yet reconciled my support for prison abolition with my desire for crimes such as hate crimes, rape, and hate speech to be real and enforced. It’s a really tough question. But my answer is certainly not to say those things shouldn’t be emphasized as crimes that we take very seriously. And currently, the way we take crimes more seriously is to threaten bigger sentences. It’s not a very thoughtful model, I agree…

   It would be a good critique of HCL to say that it buys into an excessively punitive system rather than challenges it, but that doesn’t seem like such a convincing reason to oppose the idea of HCL altogether.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 6:32 pm ¶

8. carol wrote:

   Thank you for this! As a liberal-minded person who cares very much that discrimination is acknowledged and sufficiently penalized, hate crime seems easy to get behind. However, we need to question it. This point brings up so many good reasons–I would also add that it sets a precedent that allows the government to decide if an ideas is “good” or bad.” I think that Natasha hit the nail on the head with the phrase “think crime.” HCL allows the government to penalizes actions based on the ideas behind the actions. This opens the door for the government to decide what ideas are dangerous and to persecute people with “dangerous” ideas more harshly.

   The animal rights community is currently suffering this misuse of government authority via a 2006 law called the “Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act.” This law steps up sentencing guidelines for illegal activity when it is done for the sake of “animal rights.” The idea that vandalism can be punished more harshly if the perpetrator is an animal rights activist sends a clear message: the government is willing to extend its power to silence dissent.

   Allowing the government to persecute ideology begins descent down a slippery slope. I think that the heart of HCL is in the right place, but in practice, it allows the government to repress unfavorable ideology (and the government maintains the power of defining which ideologies are unfavorable).

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 7:38 pm ¶

9. jvansteppes wrote:

   I think it’s important to acknowledge it when racism/homophobia/transphobia etc motivate violence against others, so I think we should have some kind of term to differentiate such attacks, but hate crime legislation is obviously not the solution. In the realm of misogynist/domestic violence (especially when sex workers are concerned) we already have proof enough that police and justice systems do little to solve root problems; why would these institutions be any more helpful to trans/queer/poc targets of violence.

   Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 8:57 pm ¶

10. atlasien wrote:

    I’ll argue against the idea that hate crimes legislation is bad because it “polices thought”. I don’t care to argue against it on any other points, because the criticism of the prison industrial complex is pretty crucial.

    But hate crime legislation does NOT equal policing of thought.

    It’s based on a pretty simple principle: that some criminals are more dangerous to the public than others. The vast majority of murders happen because someone kills someone they know. Very often, it’s a husband who kills his wife. Or a man who kills his business associate. Or a rival gang member.

    The people who terrify us as a society are the people who kill strangers. We can do what we can to minimize the risk of being killed by someone we know… but there is no way to completely guard against being randomly selected for murder. That’s why we’re so obsessed with serial killers…

    Hate crimes are just a subset of people who kill/hurt strangers. Just by being black, or being gay, or being a woman (e.g. Sodini) you are at totally random risk of being attacked. You’re not at risk because of who you know, you’re at risk because of who you are, something you can’t change.

    It’s not all about intent or thought. It’s about effect, and who is at risk.

    The law already recognizes LOTS of distinctions based on that sort of stuff. If you defend yourself against someone who’s trying to kill you, and you kill your attacker, you’re probably not going to face the same penalty as an equivalent person (e.g. same race, class) who “shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”. It’s the same act — killing a human being — but the first person who kills is judged to be a lot less dangerous to society than the other, and the law is supposed to account for that.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶

11. jen wrote:

    @carol- thanks for adding this!
    You’re right that it is a scary slippery slope and another recent advent is ‘eco-terrorism’ and the hunt for all sorts of activists that get re-classified & labeled as some sort of ___ domestic terrorist.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶

12. chitown queer wrote:

    “The people who terrify us as a society are the people who kill strangers”

    that’s exactly what the police do, to black and brown people, queer and straight.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶

13. Jess wrote:

    I think it’s possible that the issue gets confused because we get confused about what the law is supposed to do.

    In a perfect, rational world where we had complete information about everyone you wouldn’t need a legal system. And in the oft-mythologized / romanticized pre-industrial period (back in the days when the biggest political units were 1,000 people or so, and most of them related) you could have social pressure that served that function.

    But we don’t live like that anymore, so if we’re going to get along with people we aren’t related to then we eed something in place to protect folks from the ones who are the “cheaters” in the social system (I am using the term in a game-theory sense here).

    Now, that leaves us in the position of trying to decide what we want laws — and the enforcement thereof — to do. Deterrence might be one idea. It’s certainly one that a lot of people point to when supporting the death penalty. And if people were rational, all the time, then it would work. Who wants to die?

    But then we run into the problem that people aren’t rational. I mean, you make a dozen irrational decisions before breakfast (and during). The decision to wear the blue shirt over the red one because you think it looks good on you — despite all your friends telling you it doesn’t — is like that. We don’t weigh consequences like a computer does.

    Put another way, if deterrence worked, there would be no crime in Saudi Arabia. So clearly deterrence isn’t much help.

    So is the idea to punish? We punish people to stop them from doing something again, as with children, and also do demonstrate that we think it is wrong. We punish people in social groups all the time. The ultimate punishment is often separation from the group (we are social animals after all) which is why solitary confinement is so awful. Or, if you are in a marginal society such as the Inuits, you send someone to live by themselves, which was often effectively a death sentence. If you are a kid in high school who violates social codes you are punished as well with being ostracized.

    But punishment is after the fact, If that is what you want then you have to acknowledge that and understand that you aren’t trying to deter anyone else (though you can get that effect, certainly — there is a reason I don’t take that $5,000 offer to smuggle drugs in my luggage from Colombia) but you are making it an expression of what your society thinks is wrong.

    That’s okay, by the way. But it means you have to rejigger expectations.

    Honestly, I am of two minds when it comes to HCL. I don’t buy that it leads to thought-criminalization. (Or rather it need not do so). But I also was never so sure it did very much except express extra disapproval of the kind of action it punishes — again not a terrible idea, but then you have to ask about whether that is necessary, given what other stuff you are trying to do.

    God, I hope I made sense

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 10:27 pm ¶

14. No! The other left! wrote:

    @carol/8:

    “HCL allows the government to penalizes actions based on the ideas behind the actions. This opens the door for the government to decide what ideas are dangerous and to persecute people with “dangerous” ideas more harshly.”

    IANAL, but I find this line of reasoning dubious, because it appears to me that the ideas and thoughts behind actions are already an essential part of determining what crime was committed. For example, we recognize the difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder, even though the result of the crime is the same (a person is dead), and yet this has not caused us to slide down the slippery slope. Wikipedia article on mens rea offers a nice overview of this line of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

    That being said, I think you could argue that HCL does not penalize the thoughts behind the crime per se, but the act of making those thoughts known, and therefore widening the effect of the crime from the immediate victim to the whole group from which the victim was chosen. For example, consider this quote from the Wikipedia article on Son of Sam: “As all the shooting victims so far had long, dark hair, thousands of women in New York cut or dyed their hair, and beauty supply stores had trouble meeting the demand for blond wigs.” To my untrained eye, the sentencing aims to be proportional to the effect of the crime, and if the hate crimes cause more harm, it makes sense to make the sentencing more harsh. (Assuming that harsh(er) sentencing makes sense at all, that is.)

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 10:55 pm ¶

15. Cindy wrote:

    I don’t have much to add beyond the comments of @slush @altasien. The basis of arguments against HCL are fundamentally flawed. Prison is not a reform system, but a punishment system. HCL came about because many of these crimes were not prosecuted at all. This was a way to force law enforcement to actually do something and acknowledge a form of targeted crime (@altasien addresses this quite well).

    The only valid reason to argue against HCL is to generate healthy discussion about it.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 11:08 pm ¶

16. NancyP wrote:

    Hate crimes can be defined as a form of domestic terrorism, a form of political violence. Violence against one or several members of the despised group is meant to intimidate the entirety of the group. The violence can be random, or can be directed toward a leading member of the community.

    The mother of all hate crimes was lynching, a public murder sanctioned by the local white community, and meant to send a message to the local and regional black community. The murderer’s expectation was that he would be regarded as entirely justified and as being a hero in most white people’s eyes in the community. Lynching prosecutions were rarely if ever won.

    Few hate crimes are as clear-cut as lynching. I’d say that machine-gunning a gay bar, killing half a dozen (or more) patrons, would count as a hate crime (NYC, late 1980s or early 1990s). I’d say torching a gay bar, killing about 15 people, would count (New Orleans, mid-1970s). I’d say shooting random children at a shul or Jewish community center would count as a hate crime.

    I believe that there is a role for expressing societal and judicial disapproval of this violence. One thing that a federal hate crime law could do is to allow federal prosecution of a crime for which it was impossible to get a local conviction. Federal civil rights law was used in this manner.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 11:40 pm ¶

17. NancyP wrote:

    “Eco-terrorism” can be ridiculed. We (should) have different standards for loss of life and loss of property, and so-called “eco-terrorism” amounts to vandalizing paint jobs on Hummers sitting on a car lot. This was unfortunate for the car dealer, who may well have the loss covered by insurance, but was simply not on the level of loss of life, limb, sight. “Felony vandalization” would be the right term.

    I do not know of any loss of life or serious injury inflicted intentionally by eco-radicals. On the other hand, there is a taboo against talking about anti-abortion bombers and shooters as domestic terrorists. Eric Rudolph placed his abortion clinic shrapnel bomb such that the first person entering the clinic, always a staffer with a key, would be killed. The pattern of short-sequence bombing, the first bomb drawing attention to the site, then the second bomb five to ten minutes later specifically intended to kill ambulance, police, and fire personnel, automatically makes a bombing a terrorist act.

    Posted 24 Nov 2009 at 11:52 pm ¶

18. BlueMonkE wrote:

    Just found this little slice of the ‘net. Interesting indeed; but, to the article at hand…

    Firstly, I agree with a previous poster (Mike), in that “Our penalties are harsher and sentences longer than they are anywhere else on the planet,” seems rather tongue and cheek. As pointed out, what about places like the PRC, North Korea, Burma, or Russia? Statements like that make it hard to take commentators seriously.

    Next, “Incarceration does nothing to address the root reasons why someone was violent or hateful,” is a given. I don’t think anyone would argue that incarceration addresses the roots of criminal activity. That’s not the point of it, the point of it is punishment. It’s the simplest and most efficient method for a society to deal with a problem quickly.

    To continue, beyond those rudimentary points, let me play devil’s advocate. To some points made in previous posts;

    “The entire mainstream mentality about criminal justice is self-defeating and both philosophically and logistically unsound. It is founded on othering and dehumanization. It is impossible to imagine these structures existing in or being supportive of a non-oppressive society.”

    Sometimes society needs to repress certain elements. Let’s look at it through an evolutionary lens. If one animal (person) in the herd (society) suddenly lashes out and kills another animal or two, that animal has become a threat to the herd’s survival. The herd can banish said animal or kill it. This is, in essence, one of the roles that the prison system plays.

    Some people, murderers, rapists, molesters of the helpless, have forfeited their right to live sociably with the rest of society, and therefore, have “dehumanized” themselves. Through their oppression they have lost the right live free, and must be exiled or put down, like animals.

    We do these animals one better; when they turn on society they are given a trial, a chance, to prove they are worthy of remaining in the society. Though trials are imperfect, they are a far sight better than what would have been offered to those sorts of people at any other point in history. Even the Nazis got their trials, though it could have been argued they never deserved them.

    So, if a crime is committed against anyone, what does the motivation matter?

    “Hate crimes are just a subset of people who kill/hurt strangers. Just by being black, or being gay, or being a woman (e.g. Sodini) you are at totally random risk of being attacked. You’re not at risk because of who you know, you’re at risk because of who you are, something you can’t change. ”

    You’re at risk by being alive. The Washington snipers (as a specific example), terrorists, thieves who happen to be armed, these are all threats to society. All are dealt with within the bounds of existing law. Why should it be different if a murder terrorizes any other subset of society, be they gay, of certain religious or political persuasions or what have you? Someone who has stepped outside the bounds of decent society to commit heinous acts against anyone should be punished, in equal measure. What does it matter if they were committing acts against gays or straights, men or women?

    “It’s not all about intent or thought. It’s about effect, and who is at risk…” (later followed by) “It’s the same act — killing a human being…”

    So it is about intent and thought… One person intended to attack, intended to do harm, the other person defended themselves from said act in proportionate measure. Effect, the same, death. Intent, different.

    Next, “The mother of all hate crimes was lynching…” I disagree, respectfully. But it depending on how far back in history you want to go, and what countries or localities you limit this comment to, it could be nominally correct.

    Lastly, “I’d say that machine-gunning a gay bar, killing half a dozen (or more) patrons, would count as a hate crime (NYC, late 1980s or early 1990s). I’d say torching a gay bar, killing about 15 people, would count…”

    It counts as murder, at least. Why should it be different if someone walked into a bar and machine-gunned half a dozen random people?

    “One thing that a federal hate crime law could do is to allow federal prosecution of a crime for which it was impossible to get a local conviction.”

    It’s impossible to get a local conviction for murder? If referencing to the earlier comment about lynching, two points. Lynching was not only a tool to be used against blacks; their were Italians, people accused of rape, etc. Other people suffered from lynching though it was undoubtedly used most prolifically against blacks in recent history. But let’s not forget that hanging used to be a common form of punishment, and mobs hanged all sorts of people.

    Point two, lynchers were tried and convicted (locally) as early as 1898. It was not impossible, though certainly granted, not wholly probable. But did the Feds really do a sight better than localities, I’m not too sure.

    In summation, my point is, regardless of the motive, when a person goes outside the bounds of decent society, regardless of who their target may be, they should be punished. It doesn’t matter what the motive was. Murder is murder, mass murder is mass murder, rape is rape.

    The extenuating circumstances provide evidence as to motivation, but the crime is abhorrent not matter what the cause.

    Thank you for your time.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 7:08 am ¶

19. AS wrote:

    I think linking the injustices of the justice system and the poor conditions of our prison system is misguided at best. You say that the sentence enhancement is not to enlighten the person found guilty of the crime, but neither is does prison have classes on how and why one oughtn’t steal someone’s car because s/he needs to learn to respect the property of others.

    Not every state has legislation on the books protecting queer people. Now that they have a federal remedy, they have an option in the federal system. Keep in mind too that states often do not have the resources or skilled enough attorneys to prosecute hate crimes or any crimes of another person’s civil liberties. Rodney King got justice through the federal system, Patrick Dorismond’s rapists got punished by the federal justice system, all because they had the jurisdiction to bring in the big guns.

    There is a huge aspect to this that all of you seem to be missing: by making it illegal to kill someone because s/he is gay or trans, the federal government makes them a protected class. Now someone can go to the Supreme Court and make the claim that it was illegal for “Jon’s” employer to fire him because he is gay, or kick him out of his rented apartment, deny him a job, deny him the right to adop5 or the right to have an end of life contract drawn up in one state honored by a sister state all because the hate crimes bill, while not directed at housing, does identify sexual orientation as a protected class. Now queer people can make a credible claim that they fall within the protected classes or “the untouchables”: gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and disability. And once the federal government has established a right for a group, a state can only expand upon it, not contract it. Putting queer people into a protected class opens all sorts of doors that protests could not open and homophobic legislative initiative cannot close.

    This hate crime equals thought crime theory is rooted in a misunderstanding not only of hate crimes laws, but of the law in general. Almost every crime has an aggravating factor (an addition to the underlying crime that makes it worse). If I use a gun in an assault, the assault gets raised to assault in the first degree (assault with a deadly weapon), therefore I would get my sentence for assault enhanced because of my use of a firearm. That extra five years is get in prison for using a gun in that crime, even if I legally had it and had a carry permit, is not an attack on my Second Amendment rights. It is punishing me for escalating an assault using a gun illegally, thereby raising the risk of death, disfigurement, permanent disability or more serious injury to the victim had it just been a fist fight. Punishing someone for “falsely” (this is almost always left out of the quote) shouting fire in a crowded theater is not an infringement on First Amendment rights. It is punishing a person for deliberately creating a panic that could cause people to be hurt by using words.

    All of our rights, when enforced properly or not undermined by another law which supersedes them, immunize us from political considerations, which party is in power, etc. It is when we use those rights, such as the right to be a bigot, to behave illegally that we get into trouble. Someone who beats a black man because he is black violating that black man’s right too, in addition to subjecting everyone who is black to an attack. Hate crimes legislation is one way our system keeps us from using our rights to violate those of others.

    Finally, what I find disturbing is that recent high profile shootings have not been treated as hate crimes against women. George Soldini attacked a latin jazz aerobics class because he knew there would be more women in it, the kid who shot up Virginia Tech was on the hunt for women, the sicko who raped and killed the Amish girls in the schoolhouse (he let the boys leave unharmed) all committed hate crimes based on gender, yet it is never treated that way. All we hear is “this man was lonely, he could not get a date, and felt angry with women because of it.” The media never mention the hate crime element of it. Oh well, so much for progress.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 9:24 am ¶

20. Maegan la Mala Ortiz wrote:

    I have written over and over, in the context of anti-Latino hate crimes, homophobic/transphobic hate crimes and the many places they intersect about why hate crimes may make us feel good but they won’t save our lives or the lives of community members. You should read the statement the Denver Chapter of INCITE! wrote after the verdict of Andrade, Angie Zapata’s killer.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 10:54 am ¶

21. atlasien wrote:

    @AS: I agree, obviously, with your argument against the fallacious “hate crime equals thought crime” theory.

    I also agree that it’s disturbing that hate crimes against women are not charged as such, or thought of as such. What Sodini did was a hate crime against women! Anthony Sowell, the Cleveland Killer, who raped and killed at least 11 women, was also probably committing hate crimes against black women.

    I think hate crimes against women are somewhat unique, in that for these crimes, it’s harder to separate opportunity from targeted hate… because men and women don’t live apart. Did Sowell kill those women because they were women, or because they were a) close geographically and b) vulnerable? I don’t think it’s really possible to separate those factors.

    But then again, ALL hate crimes have some element of ambiguity to them. Intention definitely shouldn’t be the sole judgment factor… intention is really only important/useful as it indicates effect. And the effect of a hate crime is that all members of the target group are terrorized by the crime, and live their lives in greater fear.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 11:08 am ¶

22. Slush wrote:

    Bob Herbert wrote a great commentary about Sodini and hate crimes against women: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html

    @AS – I’m afraid HCL don’t create a protected class for GLBTs or others that are not already in such. They do so internally, by nature, but they’re not going to apply to employment law until the courts interpret them that way. You’ve got an argument that it’s a step in that direction, but it’s just not that immediate, and could still fall out the other way.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶

23. Brandon wrote:

    Just adding one more thing on the notion that hate crimes legislation is somehow policing thought…

    No. You can think whatever you want to think. That whole “thought police” term is playing right into the fear-mongers’ hands.

    These laws don’t police thought… they react to crimes and then analyze intent. People are allowed to have their biases and un-PC thoughts and attitudes. But if they commit a crime BECAUSE of them…

    I just don’t like seeing people on our side use the term “thought police”.

    Also, while I agree that anti-hate crimes legislation is of questionable merit… let’s be careful not to lump all laws together. Of course we all agree that anti-discrimination laws are worth having on the books. (Right?) But then there are other civil rights laws for crimes lesser than extreme violent acts.

    There are civil laws that protect people. If someone makes threats based on a bias, then that bias should be considered in punishment. It’s about safety and protecting people.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶

24. Brooke wrote:

    @ NancyP: One thing that a federal hate crime law could do is to allow federal prosecution of a crime for which it was impossible to get a local conviction.

    ITA, that’s one productive use of HCL that actually gets results. If HCLs were solely focused on making resources available to areas who can’t/won’t prosecute on their own, I’d have far less to object to.

    @AS – hate crime legislation doesn’t actually make a group a protected class outside of the criminal justice system. That requires a whole ‘nother set of legislation.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 2:47 pm ¶

25. AS wrote:

    Acknowledging sexual orientation as a grounds for enhancing a sentence is of course not a 1:1 comparison on housing, jobs, etc. But most of our landmark Supreme Court cases were not based on 1:1 existing statutes, otherwise there would be no issue. This opens a door and the first doors to get totally kicked in should be the 45 states where GLBT people have no rights in general. I am not going to go into every single case, every procedural detail, and complexity because it would take a text book. It won’t happen immediately, some states will dig in their heels, others will change to avoid the shit storm. By the way, it won’t be based on so-called “legal technicalities.” Our legal system has laws, convoluted and flawed though they may be, but they are not technicalities.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 7:27 pm ¶

26. Krysten wrote:

    To those who believe HCL sets a precedent to “police thought”:

    The precedent has already been set. The law makes a distinction between murder committed with or without intent. Compare these scenarios: A) Someone who kills another person because they accidentally ran a red light, and B) Someone who sees their spouse crossing the street and speeds up to run them over and kills them.

    Although it could be argued that intent shouldn’t be taken into consideration because the outcome of both scenarios is the same—someone has been killed—most people agree that the person’s intent should be considered when charging people with manslaughter or murder.

    A distinction between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is that the perpetrator of a hate crime intends to strike fear into all of those in the targeted group. Having said that, I think most rapes should be considered hate crimes, as women are often specifically targeted.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 10:46 pm ¶

27. dersk wrote:

    @NancyP – FWIW, one of the two big murders of the decade here in Holland – that of Pim Fortuyn, a populist who was also anti-Muslim – was committed by an eco-terrorist.

    @Krysten – you’re talking circumstances, though, not motive. A better analogy would be to take *exactly* the same crime, in one case because the victim happened to be there and in another because the victim happened to be the first (say) black person who walked by. And what if in the first case the person randomly happened to be black?

    The virtual impossibility of really determining motive is my primary reason for being mildly against hate crimes legislation.

    Posted 26 Nov 2009 at 11:09 am ¶

28. Maggie Jo wrote:

    No. Enacting Hate Crime Legislation might seem like a sticking a bandaid on heart murmur…. But its not, it represents unity against the hate part of the crime. I know that if I escape they’ll really get it for targeting me.

    Posted 30 Nov 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶