Bob Terry:

Like Nick I have a serious fear of thought crimes/thought police.

With all respect for my good friend Nick and for you, sir, how can the government police one's thoughts?  Maybe the founders did not include freedom of thought in the First Amendment because they could not imagine such a thing as "thought police."  Neither can I.  Hate crime legislation enables law enforcement authorities to prosecute criminal behaviors associated with hateful thinking toward selected types of people, but it's the behaviors that are proscribed, not the hateful thinking that motivates them.  Help me understand your "fear of thought crimes/thought police."

Ricky:

Help me understand your "fear of thought crimes/thought police."

For starters, prosecutors and the court system are plenty stretched already prosecuting crimes without having to delve into the thought process of the perpetrators, why they did their special crime and whether or not there is some race/gender bias involved. Federalizing "hate crimes" muddies the division of responsibility between Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies. Most states have such legislation in place already. Is there evidence that the States are not doing their job?

Ricky:

Hate crime legislation enables law enforcement authorities to prosecute criminal behaviors associated with hateful thinking toward selected types of people, but it's the behaviors that are proscribed, not the hateful thinking that motivates them.

You can't have it both ways. Are the authorities prosecuting criminals for their hateful thinking or not the hateful thinking that motivates them. There are your "thought police."

Here is an example. Suppose Joe, resident lowlife thug, is hanging around outside of a grocery store. He spots an elderly woman headed for her car, groceries in hand. Joe mugs here and steals her pocketbook (yeah, that's old school) and takes off with her money and credit cards. Since there were witnesses, Mr. Lowlife is soon arrested, charged and jailed. Slam dunk, right? But nooooooo, we now have the Federal "Hate Crimes Act" and since Joe mugged a female it is now up to the thought police to read Joe the lowlife's mind and figure out whether he mugged the woman because he hates females or that she was an easy mark. Depending on the statutes of the particular state, there may be different punishments in place for a "regular" crime or the dreaded "hate" crime. In theory, the slimebag may end up doing less time for the Federal "hate" rap as compared to what the state might hand out for a sentence.

That is just a simple example. The potential for the Feds to interfere with the State's law enforcement is mind boggling.

Nick

 

Nick Prout:

bobchristenson:

Hate crime laws are among the stupidest laws ever enacted. Do my thoughts at the time of my crime somehow make me more guilty?

Go Bob! Welcome to my page. Well said.

The thinking behind criminal behavior is very often factored into the charges, determinaton of guilt, and sentencing.  It's the difference between homicide with malice aforethought (first degree murder), depraved indifference, involuntary manslaughter, temporary insanity, diminished capacity, accidental "wrongful death," self-defense, etc.  Countless statutes and court rulings acknowledge the importance of thought in the commission of a crime.  The notion that "hate crimes" are by definition stupid or silly because they consider motive seems like a political statement that discounts accepted centuries-old principles of common law.  Even Hammurabi considered "criminal intent" in his code of laws over 3,700 years ago.  For example, "if a man puts out the eye of another man [intentionally], his eye shall be put out (196)."  However, "if during a quarrel one man strikes another and wounds him, then swears 'I did not injure him wittingly,' he shall pay the physician (206)."

There are sociopaths who murder indiscriminately without hate or remorse.  There are desperate, frightened people who inadvertantly commit homicide in the commission of a crime such as theft.  And there are haters who attack and sometimes kill people because of their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation.  Does the killer's thinking at the time, his motivation, make any difference?  To the victim, probably not.  To society, entrusted with criminal justice, the killer's thoughts do matter.  We can't be sure what a killer was thinking, even if he is forthcoming in a confession, so we consider the circumstances (the who, when, where, how) to make logical assumptions about the why.

P.S.  Here is one from the Code of Hammurabi for Clonnie: "If fire breaks out in a house, and someone who comes to put it out casts his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and takes the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown in that same sort of fire (25)."

Nick Prout:

Here is an example. Suppose Joe, resident lowlife thug, is hanging around outside of a grocery store. He spots an elderly woman headed for her car, groceries in hand. Joe mugs here and steals her pocketbook (yeah, that's old school) and takes off with her money and credit cards. Since there were witnesses, Mr. Lowlife is soon arrested, charged and jailed. Slam dunk, right? But nooooooo, we now have the Federal "Hate Crimes Act" and since Joe mugged a female it is now up to the thought police to read Joe the lowlife's mind and figure out whether he mugged the woman because he hates females or that she was an easy mark.  That is just a simple example. The potential for the Feds to interfere with the State's law enforcement is mind boggling.

I think your paranoid suspicious mind (with regard to federal power) is leading you into a dark alley of irrationality.  Your mind boggles too much, perhaps as a consequence of overthinking.  A mugging is not a hate crime simply because of the gender of the victim. Regardless, there is no policing of thought, per se, just criminal behavior.  A hater is free to think all the nasty thoughts that come into his sick head; but he cannot act on them. 

Usually the feds assist state and local law enforcement officials in criminal investigations.  Granted, jurisdictional issues can arise, but it's all in the interest of protecting public safety.  I know you are not inclined to sympathize with criminals, but you are starting to sound like an ACLU card-carrying liberal, Nick.

Dave Hanson:

The thinking behind criminal behavior is very often factored into the charges, determinaton of guilt, and sentencing.  It's the difference between homicide with malice aforethought (first degree murder), depraved indifference, involuntary manslaughter, temporary insanity, diminished capacity, accidental "wrongful death," self-defense, etc

 

I understand the parameters for different degrees of the same act, but believe that throwing potential predjudice against social groups on top of what is in place already will not reduce crime but is more pandering to said groups.

Dave Hanson:

We can't be sure what a killer was thinking, even if he is forthcoming in a confession, so we consider the circumstances (the who, when, where, how) to make logical assumptions about the why.

 So, from the above statement, law enforcement has to make a logical assumption about the why which is the thought process of the perp. Thought police!

 

Nick Prout:

For starters, prosecutors and the court system are plenty stretched already prosecuting crimes without having to delve into the thought process of the perpetrators, why they did their special crime and whether or not there is some race/gender bias involved. Federalizing "hate crimes" muddies the division of responsibility between Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies. Most states have such legislation in place already. Is there evidence that the States are not doing their job?

 

Nick and all, I just don't see "thought police" when I think of hate crimes and their penalties. Some crimes are so offensive and violent that they become a part of history as well as shared horror. Criminal sentences have reflected the seriousness and deleterious nature of the offense. We sometimes see crimes in which juveniles are tried as an adult. Motives/premeditation is a significant factor in the classification of murder. Victims of hate crimes (bias-motivated crimes) are precisely chosen because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. When the core of one's identity is attacked, we all are attacked. Crimes against people for things they cannot change especially qualify as crimes that deserve harsher punishments.

Nick Prout:

The potential for the Feds to interfere with the State's law enforcement is mind boggling.

 I believe there are only 45 states plus the District of Columbia that have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. A little more consistency nation-wide would be good. Some states do not have an increased penalty for hate crimes. One such crime in South Carolina resulted in the criminal being charged with manslaughter for the death of a gay man--and serving a short sentence.  

I've read the bill and section 4702-Findings, 9 and 10 states:

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

 

 

You may also find this helpful:

SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this division and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply:

(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(3) CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

 

 For those of you that want to read the bill, go to:

http://thomas.loc.gov  and search for bill HR 2647

Nick Prout:

So, from the above statement, law enforcement has to make a logical assumption about the why which is the thought process of the perp. Thought police!

Okay Nick, since you're determined to make this about "thought police," I'll agree for the sake of argument.  Still, the policing is for the violent behavior as an overt manifestation of hateful thinking.  Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the government is policing hateful thought (indirectly) when such thinking is a motivation for violent behavior.  The implication of your hand-wringing objection seems to be that it's a dangerous intrusion on the liberty of otherwise law-abiding citizens, as in, "Yikes, the totalitarian thought police are arresting and punishing people for politically incorrect thinking."  Help me understand how prosecuting a man for the act of murdering and mutilating the body of a homosexual, as a hate crime, intrudes in any way on your freedom of thought.

 Ok, I'll try to make this simple.1)  A man murders/mutilates a member of a protected group. Hate crime! Extra harsh punishment.

 2)Man murders/mutilates me. Male, caucasian, heterosexual, taxpayer, believes in individualism etc. Member of villified group, but not protected. (fat chance..haha) Less punishment than example 1

Same crime, same result. Two dead mutilated bodies yet #1 is considered a worse crime. What does the classification of "hate" do for the victim of #1? Is it not the responsibility of the justice system to prosecute a crime to the full extent of the law no matter who the victim and perp are? Shouldn't criminals be punished for their actions as opposed to their beliefs? Equal protection under the law? Blind justice? This did not apply to (#2) me in this case and I'm just as dead.

I know we quote Thomas Jefferson too much, but he did say "The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Are opinions not thoughts?

Maybe we're just nitpiking semantics. I just do not see the upside of the whole hate crime mentality. It certainly is a boon for lawyers who can cash in on civil suits after the criminal division is done  with a hate crime perp since the victim belonged to some protected group. Deb mentioned that 45 states have their own hate legislation. When the remaining 5 become "enlightened" and join the crowd, where does that leave the Feds one size fits all hate legislation? Can't wait for the different layers of the justice system to figure that one out. To me it is symbolism over substance with neglible results.

 

 

 

Mr. Prout, in your "simple" scenario, you proceed to describe the supposedly two men murdered and mutilated as "1)  ...a member of a protected group" and "2) ...Male, caucasian, heterosexual, taxpayer, believes in individualism etc. Member of villified group" so your own premise has delineated an important "difference" in their worth as decided by you. 

All crime is despicable and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law but there are differences in crimes and criminals that do indeed make some more heinous and offensive to humanity and society.  To pretend otherwise is to deny the truth IMO.

If your special male Caucasian, heterosexual, taxpaying individualism lover, no matter how vilified is murdered and mutilated, it certainly could send shock waves and fear through that community, there is that.  However, throughout our history, that has not been the case and until it is, I do not see hate crime attached to that death.

Now your number 1, the lowly member of a "protected class" that we know nothing about arrived at that designation BECAUSE of decades of persecution, exclusion and hatred perpetrated by those who fear and hate and as bad as that may seem to the survivors of your #2, the rest of society can and does see the difference.  Would that crime would simply be crime, but that is not the reality of life.

 

 

 

 Sometines a "ump" can be enlighting!

So you don't think I should have gone there?.........Not sure exactly your point, but given all i am reading in here about golf, and home matters, etc, etc,....I'm reading all this stuff in here about the "mind Police".    Some very interesting discussions I find quite interesting.  I think my deep end was justified......but of course, just my opion.   I certainly respect yours which is what you believe in leads to why we are here as a panel. Hope I'm baking since?   Maybe I shouldn't have had that extra class of "trick or Treat" giving to me for my birthday!  Hope all had as fun evening as we did in dumpy Old S.E.

Sandi Saunders:

Member of villified group" so your own premise has delineated an important "difference" in their worth as decided by you. 

 

Gee, I guess it is not ok to have a little fun with my description so you could conveniently ignore the whole point of the post and zero in on that. Perhaps you can explain just how the extra punishment for these hate crimes is going to A) Improve the lot of those who belong to these select groups and B) Make up for the sins of the past. It is those two premises that make this whole hate legslation morass appear so bogus to me.

Sandi Saunders:

the rest of society can and does see the difference.  Would that crime would simply be crime, but that is not the reality of life.

The rest of society? That is mighty inclusive. Is there some huge poll or survey I've missed that shows a large majority believing this is a great idea and a fix for human strife? Humans have not gotten along with one another ever since we started to walk in an upright position. Legislation handing out extra punishment to protect arbitrarily selected groups is not going to change thousands of years of history. That is the reality of life. 

 

Nick Prout:

Ok, I'll try to make this simple.1)  A man murders/mutilates a member of a protected group. Hate crime! Extra harsh punishment.  2)Man murders/mutilates me. Male, caucasian, heterosexual, taxpayer, believes in individualism etc. Member of villified group, but not protected. (fat chance..haha) Less punishment than example 1.  Same crime, same result. Two dead mutilated bodies yet #1 is considered a worse crime. What does the classification of "hate" do for the victim of #1? Is it not the responsibility of the justice system to prosecute a crime to the full extent of the law no matter who the victim and perp are? Shouldn't criminals be punished for their actions as opposed to their beliefs? Equal protection under the law? Blind justice? This did not apply to (#2) me in this case and I'm just as dead.

I know we quote Thomas Jefferson too much, but he did say "The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Are opinions not thoughts?

I appreciate your attempt to make it simple for me.  If we were having a conversation you could talk... real... slooow.  Since we're writing, you can use small words (LOL).  Yes, some people do quote Saint Thomas, the Sage of Monticello, an awful lot.  A brilliant political philosopher, he was also a crafty politician full of opinions.  He wrote much, and selective bits of his rhetoric have been taken out of context almost as much as the Apostles of Christ.  What you quoted was Jefferson's human opinion about opinions, not the wisdom of a demigod. 

Back to the issue here, you seem to have dropped your hand-wringing over totalitarian thought police (thankfully) and picked up the blind-justice scales of "fairness."  It's unfair that a man who murders and mutilates a homosexual might get prosecuted differently than if you'd been the victim.  Oh my!  We can't allow unfairness in our society, can we?  The poor urban black youth and the wealthy suburban white youth surely will get the same fairness in our criminal justice system.  Justice is blind, right?  The heterosexual couple and the homosexual couple are treated with "equal justice" and fairness in all matters civil, criminal, and social, right?

In your reply to Sandi you objected to "legislation handing out extra punishment to protect arbitrarily selected groups," noting that it will not "change thousands of years of history."  Were groups protected by hate crime legislation "arbitrarily selected?"  Did legislators toss a coin in the air?  Heads you're included, tails you're not?  Was it mere "pandering" to special populations?  The intent of such legislation is not to change history; it's to change the future.  We cannot unlynch blacks who had the misfortune of being in the cross-hairs of a few Klansmen, but we can make it less likely that such hate crimes will go unpunished in the future.  There is a history that cannot be changed, but also should not be forgotten or passed on to future generations.