The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 3, Thread 7.
1. Hate Crimes
Fri, Nov 13, 1998 - 3:05 PM/EST
sully
Do you think that criminals that commit crimes against protected classes of people are entitled to punishments above and beyond that what the law requires for the crime even if the protected class of the victim was not a consideration during the commission of the crime?
2. hate crimes people like
Fri, Nov 13, 1998 - 6:29 PM/EST
sixo
that's a contradiction which i would probably not be too far off by saying the majority of hate crime statutes already address.
in other words, most hate crimes on the books work like this:
1. a crime must be committed, like assault. if there is hatred but no crime, that's a hate *incident*, not a crime. passing out inflammatory literature, for example, is not a hate crime.
2. animus must be proximate cause. in other words, *motive* is taken into consideration. if the motive wasn't hateful, a hate crime doesn't exist. just a crime.
3. the 'hate' part is an aggravating circumstance tied to the original crime, not a separate crime. like assault becomes assault with a deadly weapon. (even though a weapons charge could be brought)
these three simple conditions are pretty much universally acceptable. now that i've cleared it up for you in 10 minutes, you are welcolm to vote me in as president.
3. nope, just confused me
Fri, Nov 13, 1998 - 7:18 PM/EST
Robby
No, I don't quite follow you, sixo. I hear what you're saying, but am not sure I get your point. The original question, as I see it, is whether or not a crime against one person deserves a greater punishment than the exact same crime committed against someone else.
4. not the same crime
Fri, Nov 13, 1998 - 8:27 PM/EST
haakonson
The crime is not the same if the perpetrator/s are against a group of people.
5. Hate crimes and anti-discrimination policy
Fri, Nov 13, 1998 - 10:54 PM/EST
baggins
This problem always arises when you use positive discrimination to provide protection for those previously discriminated against negatively. It will always look like discrimination - because it still is discrimination. The party is still not really being treated equally but we feel (rightly I believe) that we must try to address the previous imbalance. This leads to tokenism at best and an irrational basis for some to feel increased hatred, for the protected, at worst.
Its a catch 22 we havn't really found a way past as far as I know.
Cheers,
Baggins.
6. be specific
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - /EST
sixo
please. give me an example. all this nebulous theoretical...
7. I think Sixo cleared it up quite nicely!!
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 9:02 AM/EST
Dom
Another way of putting the original question would be "If it was dark, and I mugged someone who i couldn't see properly, who later turned out to be of a protected class, should i be punished further because that person was of a protected class or not"
The answer would have to be "No", because I mugged that person to get their money, not because they were of a protected class. So my crime was not a hate crime, and should not be punished as such.
8. Hate crimes
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 12:35 PM/EST
shuar
A hate crime is a crime visited upon a victim because of a perceived connection that victim has with a group hated by the perpetrator. Perceived is an important word here. For instance I know a number of staight men who evidently appeared to be gay to some gay-haters and consequently were assaulted. Hate crimes, like rapes are committed by people who themselves feel abused or dissed by the society. Its their unfortunate way of feeling a bit of the power they feel the society denies them. Like rape hate crimes too are expressions of the sickness of mass societies. Such crimes, for example, are unimaginable among the indian communties here in Ecuador. However, there is a belief here in witchcraft (brujeria) and people can lose their lives in the struggles between brujos.
8. Hate crimes
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 1:45 PM/EST
Marlyn
If hate as a motive is easily established as the reason the crime was committed in the first place, and the victim of the crime was selected solely on the basis of his/her membership in a group which routinely suffers discrimination or abuse, then I think an additional penalty is not unwarranted. We cannot legislate morality, but we CAN punish those who abuse morality past all acceptance. Of course, this would only apply to those crimes where actual physical damage is done.
Hate speech, whether we like it or not, is still protected by the First Amendment -- and I don't feel any further whittling away of our constitutional rights can be justified in this manner. However, a man's actions ARE his responsibility -- and I feel that if a person bases his criminal behavior upon the hate speech of another, that other should be at least publically acknowledged as one whose speech is hate-filled. Far too many hide behind a facade of respectibility (often, a pulpit) while advocating something utterly disrespectful of their audience.
Let there be something on the level of Megan's Law (which requires people in a neighborhood to be notified when a convicted sex offender moves into the area) for hate-mongers. That's my idea -- now, how to properly label these people without running the risk of being accused of discrimination in the process is another question entirely, as is who will fund the effort... ;->
9. To be specific...
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 9:22 PM/EST
baggins
sixo said; 'please. give me an example. all this nebulous theoretical..'
My point was that hate crime type legislation is like any other law that tries to provide a balance to those in minority classes who have been picked on by those in the majority class.
Here in Australia the Aboriginal people have suffered horrendous oppression over the last 200 years of Anglo-saxon occupation of the country. To try to compensate for their disadvantage the goverment sets up schemes where they get substantial financial, health, accomodation, education and employment assistance. The people in the majority class (Anglos etc) who didnt like the Aboriginal people in the first place see this assistance as unfair and discriminatory. Now they feel they are being discriminated against as they dont get these same benefits.
The result here has been the formation of the 'One Nation' political party which trots out endless reams of uninformed hate producing propaganda.
By trying to address previous negative discrimination with positive discrimination you can inadvertently provide ammunition to the haters against the hatees.
Hope that's a bit clearer.
In response to Marlyn; how do you think identifying hate-mongers (or rapists) in a local community assists the reduction of hate (or rape) in that community?
Cheers,
Baggins.
10. Are some men more equal than other men?
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 10:02 PM/EST
sully
I started this post and I am suprised by the results that most do not agree that "hate crimes" should be punished more than other crimes. For the record, I am against affirmative action, preferential treatment, American With Disabilites Act, anything where one group gets special treatment and rights over another. I am not against equal rights and equal freedoms that all people should enjoy, true equility. The government should not have the power to classify individuals by groups. The only other society in recent history that created "protected classes of persons" was NAZI Germany. Non-class protected persons were the ones who ended up in the death camps.
11. What to do?
Sun, Nov 15, 1998 - 2:43 AM/EST
Marlyn
First, to baggins:
Under ordinary conditions, I'd say that letting a neighborhood know that a hate-monger (or a rapist) exists in their midst allows the residents to either shun the person completely or take the proper precautions. I'm a parent of children who live in the same area as a half-way house -- I need to know if I need to drive my daughter to the market just up the street past that house, or whether I can let her walk there unsupervised in the late afternoon. To me, its a matter of protecting those who aren't quite ready or mature enough to protect themselves. On that level, I find it an adequate way of preventing any rapist from getting his hands on my girl -- and provided that this is as far as it goes for me and for any other resident here, I see no trouble with it.
The problem with the suggestion, as easy as it might sound otherwise, is in a fair and reasonable application. In many cases, Megan's Law is turning out to violate the rights of parolees who have served their time for their offense -- in essence, becoming a sort of double jeopardy for them. They are harrassed, lose their housing or employment -- sometimes are beaten. Somehow, what would otherwise seem only fair and reasonable protection for the law-abiding becomes an excuse to condone criminal behavior.
I suppose, on second thought, the perpetuation of a legalized hate crime on hate-mongers is a bit like spanking your kid for hitting his brother -- illogical. However, I would like to see something done to curtail it neverthe less. But since most of the hate-mongering in this country has lately come from the Conservative Christian element of society, and Christians seem to be terribly loathe to police their own in such matters, getting the Church to police itself is like setting a fox to watch the chickens.
The paradox, then, if we're fair, is that we have to allow it on the one hand while condemning it on the other. Do YOU see a solution?
sully--
I honestly think that we already have enough laws to punish criminal behavior -- and we need not extra protection for some and not others, but rather equitable protection for all without exception. Asking to make hate crimes somehow more heinous than just regular crimes means inequitable protection. For that reason, I'm NOT surprised that most here aren't in favor of new legislation.
Namaste!
Marlyn
12. Here ,here, Marlyn
Sun, Nov 15, 1998 - 5:18 AM/EST
Beren
I couldn't have put my point of view better! You said everything better than I would :)
14. What to do?
Sun, Nov 15, 1998 - 9:17 PM/EST
baggins
Marlyn said about Megan's Law; "I suppose, on second thought, the perpetuation of a legalized hate crime on hate-mongers is a bit like spanking your kid for hitting his brother -- illogical. However, I would like to see something done to curtail it nevertheless."
I suggest what really underlies the desire you express is a basic lack of trust in the penal system to achieve rehabilitation in ofenders. That is not unreasonable given that even when an offender conducts themselves well in the prison system and serves their time with contrition for their crime, they eventually must actually try to get on with their life on the 'outside'. The outside is where all the factors leading to their original decision to act hatefully (or rape) were present. These factors are usually still present - the liklihood that the person will respond as they did previously is high (unless they choose to seek some kind of support or assistance). This problem is the same for most behaviours - alcohol and drug addiction are classic examples.
The problem with 'Megan's Law' style approaches is that most crimes of hate related to individuals who feel isolated, disenfranchised and powerless. Advertising their location after they have served their time is going to hook into the worst of their issues immediately. They will be further alienated and be more likely to offend again. Even if they had intended to change for the better the pressure they are under now will make it difficult.
On the other hand I completely accept your need to protect your child - I have one too. The answer lies in better attempts at rehab which contain good levels of followup and support for those who want it. For those who dont...I guess I would like someone to keep tabs on them. Its hard to know what further should be done with them.
Cheers,
Baggins
15. hate crimes and serial criminals
Sun, Nov 15, 1998 - 10:19 PM/EST
sully
Marlyn, child molesters and rapists do not act out of the hate as a normal person would think of the defintion. These type of people are mentally ill and I have no problem keeping them locked up for life if they can not be 100% cured after serving their sentence. If they are released and still mentally sick they should be closely monitored and the public notified when they are free and the general area where they are living.
16. Hate crimes and serial criminals
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - /EST
baggins
Sully said; "Marlyn, child molesters and rapists do not act out of the hate as a normal person would think of the defintion. These type of people are mentally ill and I have no problem keeping them locked up for life if they can not be 100% cured after serving their sentence.
I think this statement is so generalised as to be unhelpful. We rarely get to the bottom of a person's intentions with regard to rape and molestation acts. Motivations for such crimes often contain elements of hatred and fear. 'Normal' is a place on the continuum of possible ways to be. In some areas of their life a rapist would think and behave quite 'normally' (such as in doing their job) but in others have real distortions in their thinking and subsequent behaviour (eg; relationships, personal power, etc).
To say they are mentally ill means little. Illness relates to an individual's response to the effects of a pathogen (such as a virus). Where is the pathogen here? Society perhaps? I hassle you about the term 'mentally ill' because of the barriers its widespread use causes for people trying to understand what such offenders are about.
Your belief in them being ill leads you to accept that they therefore can be 'cured'. This is not true and is not really a good way to frame the process these people go through in order to change - and it certainly doesn't allow for the relapse in any behaviour change that is quite possible given the appropriate environmental cues. There are no cures.
Under your system nobody would ever be released and that would be utterly unfair. Behaviour and thought can be changed - the structure of the penal system is based on that. If it were not true then who should ever be released regardless of their crime...they are only ever going to reoffend!
Too bad if you only went in for not paying your parking fines :)
Cheers,
Baggins
17. What to do? - revisited
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 10:57 AM/EST
Marlyn
baggins --
I'm not sure that my attitude is caused by an overall distrust of the present penal system -- but perhaps part of it could be laid at the fact that penal systems were never set in place to *change* people originally, only punish them. The system is trying to remake itself -- but is only managing to muddy the waters with little to moderate success. (And I view the success rate of any penal system as measurable by the rate of recidivism among the previously convicted -- regardless of "level" of justice that may include, such as juvenile to adult offenders.)
There are a few programs in place that are trying to sensitize convicted rapists to the pain and suffering they have caused, and they are meeting with some success. However you are correct in that prison is *not* the place where an offender is going to be meeting repeated opportunities to offend again -- that's what happens after parole/end of sentence.
However, I would disagree that the Megan's Law type of response preys on the disenfranchisement of the former offender. I think it preys on the sense of helplessness and victimization of the general populace who, when given the opportunity, has a sad tendency to mob mentality. Those who feel the most helpless feel the most fear -- and therefore are the most likely to a knee-jerk reaction based on their fears (whether those fears are justified being another topic entirely). These folks become what they hate most -- and don't even notice it. That's why Megan's Law isn't working.
I also agree with you that the reasons people become rapists and molesters are far too varied to lend to easy generalization. I also agree that the "cure" idea is misplaced optimism. However, the problem is that the American system of justice works on the idea that one serves X amount of time in prison for Y crime -- at which time, the convict is released from custody having "paid his/her debt to society". In my mind, Megan's Law violates that sense of 'the debt is paid".
However, we're talking Hate Crimes Law here, not just Megan's Law. Megan's Law has been in effect for only a couple of years and, altho it was enacted with the best of intentions for all concerned, has already resulted in some serious injustices and cases of discrimination. Is it possible to frame a Hate Crimes Law that *won't* simple compound that error?
Lynne --
You said that if hate crimes legislation "proves effective in reducing the number of hate crimes, then its worth it." I must respectfully disagree with you. We have the death penalty here in CA, and the number of murders hasn't abated in the least. The presence of a law on the books is *not* proving to be an effective deterent to *anything*. Moreover, there is a serious flaw in the concept of inequitable protection that can cause little but rancor and frustration in those groups which do not enjoy the extra protection.
If prosecution of present laws were handled in a totally fair and objective manner -- totally without regard to the demographic group the victim belongs to -- then justice would be truly achieved for *everyone*. If a person is beaten, then the perp is guilty of at least Assault or at best Attempted Murder, period -- the victim's demographics shouldn't change either the charge or the sentence. If I, as a straight white woman, knew that the man who (hypothetically) beat me would get *less* time in jail than the man who beat my Asian lesbian friend, I'd be seriously ticked off at the miscarriage of justice. Wouldn't you?
Besides, where I see the problem with Hate Crime Laws is in the area of trying to stretch them far enough to cover Hate Speech. That flies directly in the face of the First Amendment -- and is what makes me personally more than a little leery.
Bad law is worse than no law at all.
NamastÈ!
Marlyn
19. on megan's law & community standards
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 2:58 PM/EST
sixo
i agree that megan's law is unfair and double jeopardy. whether or not one believes in rehabilitation, the decision of the judge is represents society's most accurate and appropriate punishment. the entire system of justice depends on the verdict and sentence - what goes on in the courtroom is and should be the last word on the matter. if people feel helpless, then they should argue to up the penalties, but they should not tag convicts.
furthermore, it is the duty of the police, not the populace to investigate crime and potential crime. the identification of convicts who have *paid their debt to society* invites the ordinary joe to abuse that individual's rights to privacy, assembly and security of person.
there is an inherent conflict in using the same justice system to punish an individual (and support its interest in doing so) and independent communities engaging in similar activity for their own comfort level. no one can dispute that shunning is a punishment, no matter how appropriate it seems by community standards. so i am inclined to say that the community has a choice - either call in the police and the justice system when the crime is committed, or be vigilantes from the start. don't try both. recognize the state's interest in being the sole punisher. in other words, conform your total sense of justice with that of the state, or don't accept state assistance in dealing with rapists, serial killers, etc.
20. marlyn is right - cure vs healing
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 3:18 PM/EST
sixo
you are hitting on some of the exact same themes i am considering. i'd like to expand on that of cure vs healing as regards 'victims rights' which is common through megan's law and hate crime statutes.
example: while you are away on vacation, some hooligans break into your house and have a drug party. they trash your rooms and steal all your valuables. they draw satanic symbols on your walls in blood and they tell you that they have pictures and addresses of all your relatives, whom they intend to hunt down and slaughter.
you come home to discover this disaster and alert the proper folks. within a week the police have captured the responsible parties, the insurance company has paid up and refurnished your home, and your relatives are all safe. however you still have an enormous sense of violation and victimization.
you have been cured, but you have not been healed.
so you speak to professional counselors, your spiritual leaders, your family and friends. you take some more time off and you read a book on the subject. 3 months later you are better than new, you have a new sense of strength and have learned from this the value of life.
so the trial date comes and you look for the first time upon the perpetrators of this crime. you are without anger, and you find it easy to forgive the defendants, and so you do.
you have been healed and cured.
the point i wish to make is that i don't believe it is appropriate to expect both healing and curing from the justice system.
21. the unavoidable ethical question
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 3:33 PM/EST
sixo
so. now what if the jury decides to acquit the defendants of all charges? are you then not healed? do you recant your forgiveness? are you actually weaker than you thought? were those counselors and spiritual leaders and books and friends all wrong?
i think of hate crimes legislation in the context of communities which are much accustomed to the miscarriage of justice. these are the people who have known this experience, and their decision to strengthen the *cure* rather than to recant the *healing* is the best evidence i can think of showing them to be exemplary people. that is why phrases like 'protected class' grate on my nerves.
what is *fair* is not necessarily that which is blind to distinction. a system of justice whose ability to cure is faulty, especially in light of people's ability to heal, desparately needs reform, not abandonment. to suggest that hate crimes cannot 'legislate morality' or introduce 'inequality' among 'protected classes' is to ignore the healing spirit of those who have demanded them.
24. hate vs crime
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 12:11 PM/EST
sixo
your garden variety juror can tell the difference between 2nd degree manslaughter and 1st degree manslaughter because *the judge instructs them* on the difference. in the course of the trial, there are rules of evidence etc. so the determination of whether a hate crime exists is no different from any other crime. it's simple. examine the motive and the modus operandum. question witnesses.
most americans are stupid, but not *that* stupid.
25. hate vs. crime
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 2:20 PM/EST
haakonson
There very specific things that have to be proven, like membership of a neo-Nazi group, or unusual posession of literature advocating the elimination of a minority group.
26. Hate
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 6:13 PM/EST
GOPaul
Hate should not be a crime. If you criminalize hate, you are criminalizing thought. Only the criminal actions taken by people who "hate" should be considered. You unnecessarily complicate the issue by trying to determine whether they "hated" their victim or not. I think the under-lying motive for hate crime legislation is because criminals are not being punished harshly enough for their current crimes. Let's fix that problem instead of rooting around in someones head. Again, I don't care why they did it. Punish them for doing it. Make it severe. Make it consistant.
By the way, what's wrong with being a Nazi in a society that claims to embrace free speech? Just because you disagree with the philosophical or political views of Nazis does not make them criminals. If they act on their beliefs...that's another matter.
Baggins: You are correct to point out the cultural differences of those countries, but the fact still remains, their swift, consistant response to the criminal element results in lower crime rates. Whether they beat on their women and children or not is irrelevent to my point.
27. child molesters and rapists
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 9:37 PM/EST
sully
Baggins, do you think that a normal, sane person molests children and rapes? When I say normal, I mean the norms of the society. I say again, they do not do these crimes out of hate, but as a result of mental illness. They claim that they "love" the children while raping them. No normal, sane person would do this type of crime.
28. Hate crime laws, Megan's law, criminal "justice"
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - /EST
Lynne
Marilyn, you said, "You said that if hate crimes legislation "proves effective in reducing the number of hate crimes, then its worth it." I must respectfully disagree with you. We have the death penalty here in CA, and the number of murders hasn't abated in the least." Well, I did say IF-I don't have evidence that these laws work; maybe they don't. But it seems to me the smart thing to do would be to consider all alternatives and go with what does work the best. Whether or not it saves lives should be the primary consideration, because without life we arent' able to value anything.
As for the death penalty not reducing the number of murderers --so what? it still reduces the number of victims because you can't kill anyone if you're dead. However, I only advocate the death penalty in rare cases where we know the person has little hope of ever being rehabilitated, such as murderers who have antisocial personality disorder. Not because I think they should be punished, but because we have a responsibility to keep such people from killing again (through being released or escaping) or else the system is just as responsible for the deaths of future victims as the murderer himself.
As for Megan's law, if you are looking for a babysitter for your kid, how many people here would NOT want to know whether or not a potential sitter was a child molester? Considering the fact that most child molesters are NOT rehabilitated upon release and DO molest children again regardless of whether or not people find out about their prior convictions, people with children living close to such people do deserve to be warned and anyone who fails to warn as far as I'm concerned, shares the blame for children who are victimized because of that failure. You don't just sit back and let things happen if you have the power to prevent it.
As for people who harass ex-cons bc of this, I can't condone their actions, but that is why we have laws against harassment. It is not like they are unprotected.
Now the real problem is that these people are even released in the first place without changing their condition. There is only one little program in California that I've heard of that has had any success at rehabilitating child molesters but yet every state lets them out again. Why? Because our system is set up for punishment. You get x years as punishment, you serve it, you've paid your debt to society, nevermind how dangerous you still are to society (or in some cases, the fact that you never were --like when people go to jail for self-defense). The criminal justice system should be based on 1)-how to best protect society and 2)-how to rehabilitate criminals which for the most part, we don't currently attempt to do. So if you're not dangerous, but did something wrong, you get a fine or counseling or community service; if you are dangerous you stay in until you are no longer dangerous. I mean we KNOW these guys are just going to molest, or rape, or kill again and we let them out anyway. That is complete BS. Oh well, I've ranted long enough.
29. Hate...
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 8:15 AM/EST
baggins
GOPaul said: Baggins: You are correct to point out the cultural differences of those countries, but the fact still remains, their swift, consistant response to the criminal element results in lower crime rates. Whether they beat on their women and children or not is irrelevent to my point.
How can that be irrelevant? We are talking about the rape and molestation of women and children, whether inside or outside of the 'family'. Or are you suggesting it is a different crime if you choose victims from amongst those you are related to?
Cheers,
Baggins
30. Child molesters and rapists
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 8:33 AM/EST
baggins
Sully said: "Baggins, do you think that a normal, sane person molists children and rapes? When I say normal, I mean the norms of the society. I say again, they do not do these crimes out of hate, but as a result of mental illness. They claim that they "love" the children while raping them. No normal, sane person would do this type of crime."
I was making the point that your definition of a person being either normal or insane is not helpful. Every person in this dialogue group would hold views on some issues, have thoughts at times, or even perform behaviours in some areas that would be determined abnormal in comparison to the statistically normal view, thought, or behaviour of their society. Therefore, I might hold views that are the norm in some areas and that are abnormal in other areas. Am I normal or abnormal?
The above illustrates my point in relation to someone who might rape. To rate the 'sanity' of a person requires a comparison of their thoughts and actions in relation to those of the population they are in. In some areas (say their work related beliefs, thoughts, and behaviours) a person may be acting sanely and in others not (say their beliefs, thoughts and behaviours in relation to sex acts).
Are they sane or insane? I believe the question is pointless and in trying to paint the picture black or white you are likely to miss important information required to find out why the person has distortions in some areas and, further, how you might go about changing those distortions so that they and society can coexist.
Cheers,
Baggins.
31. correction
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 1:16 PM/EST
sixo
you don't have to be a proven member of a hate group to be convicted of a hate crime. there is a rather clean line of reasoning which distinguishes a hater from an ordinary perp, and that is in the nature of their regard for the victim.
think of it this way. a terrorist commits crime to 'teach someone a lesson'. and that makes his crime more heinous. if your intent is to terrorize your victim and/or send a message to those whom you consider to be 'like' or 'sympathetic to' your victim, it's a different class of crime. see?
i dont' have to be a card carrying member of the american nazi party to know what painting a swastika on the temple means. that's not simple vandalism, that's something entirely more ugly. and the punishment should be more severe. a crime isn't just a crime.
