I hate Redskins fans. And guys who wear mullets. And annoying people who used to come into the store where I worked and say, do, or ask really stupid things. Fortunately, I can attack any of these groups of people without worrying about whether I'll be given a stiffer penalty, because none of those groups of people are mentioned in the hate crimes legislation that President Obama signed the other day. Lucky me! Of course, if I attacked a Redskins fan and then later found out he was gay (or had a mental disability, or was from Djibouti) then I'd be in big trouble, apparently.
My apologies to the parents of Matthew Shepherd, but the idea that we can legislate more severe penalties depending on what a criminal is thinking when he or she commits the crime couldn't be more ludicrous to me. The new hate crimes bill defines hate crimes as attacks which are "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability." That's great, but doesn't that list seem a little arbitrary? Who decided where the list ends and how did they decide it? What about a person's personality? Or clothing? Or favorite sports team? And how do you enforce it? I mean, if I attack a Hindu because he's Hindu, can't I just say that I did it because he cut me off in traffic? What if "hate" as defined in this bill is one of five reasons someone gets attacked? "I killed that guy because he's obnoxious, he smells funny, he only wears two different shirts in any given week, he's smarter than me... and he's hispanic." Is that a hate crime or not? Can it be counted as 1/5th of a hate crime? Let's say Joe Schmo gets tied to a fence post, has bottles and rocks thrown at his head, gets stripped naked and left for dead. Two weeks later the same thing happens to my brother. Should the criminals in case #2 be punished less than those in case #1 because Joe Schmo is gay? And isn't crime #2 a hate crime too, because after all, my brother has a race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, AND gender identity (and maybe a mental disability... but HAHA, you don't know which brother I'm talking about!)?
If anyone is or would be willing to pretend to be a liberal, I'd appreciate hearing an argument in favor of such a ridiculous notion.
It not only seems difficult to enforce, it seems unconstitutional to me. It seems to say we are all NOT equal in the eyes of the law. It seems to imply that certain types of hatred are better than others. I can kind of see the opposing view, but I still think they're misguided.
ReplyDeleteBut doesn't this all sound kind of familiar?
Sam Seaborn: Leo, did you know that there's a town in Alabama that wants
[to make the Ten Commandments into law]
Sam Seaborn: ...
Leo McGarry: Yes.
Sam Seaborn: What do you think about that?
Leo McGarry: Coveting thy neighbor's wife is going to cause some problems.
Sam Seaborn: That's what I said. Plus, if I were arrested for coveting my neighbor's wife, when asked about it, I'd probably bear false witness.
Toolbit out.
I can't even pretend not to agree with you for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteI remember thinking in my Asian religions class in college, "I don't understand how anyone can believe this stuff." I am in the same situation here. I mean, I can't even play devils advocate in this one. It makes as much sense as this joke, "What is the difference between orange?" Answer: "The lamp post because the motorcycle doors won't open."
ReplyDeleteWhere is Grant when you need him?
ReplyDeleteOkay, let me try and play devil's advocate and see where this takes us. Perhaps you could say that certain prejudices in certain societies are so detrimental that, if only for a time, said society needs to treat such crimes as especially bad to curb violence against the group.
For instance, I think you could make a case that in Germany you might have to have stricter policies on neo-Nazism or violence against Jewish people. In this circumstance, it's not that Jews are "special" and violence against them is worse than violence against anyone else; but, because in this context they may be especially susceptible to violence, special exceptions ought to be made.
I would be against a law that says that violence against homosexuals should carry higher penalties automatically. But, I'm a little more open to the notion that if you can prove (key word) that the assailant harbored profound anti-gay sentiments, then perhaps to curb such violence would not be uncalled for.
I still think I'm against such laws. It seems to undermine citizenship when one class of people is considered more worthy of protection than another, but maybe this particular issue has merit.
Toolbit out.
Toolbit,
ReplyDeleteI think you've got some good points there, even just for playing devil's advocate :)
I think it largely comes down to enforcement issues for me. It seems like in most cases it would be VERY difficult to determine "beyond reasonable doubt" what a person was THINKING when a crime was committed. Even in the poster-child case for support of such legislation, the murder of Matthew Shepherd, there are conflicting reports (some say the crime was, at least in part, motivated by money and drugs, not Shepherd's homosexuality).