The Clinton Era - The Good, the Bad, and the Debatable

[Raesvelg]

Ah, in that case you're arguing for similarity in intent of the framers. It's akin to saying that the reason Murder 1 is punished more thoroughly than Murder 2 is to deter people from planning out murder. Which, arguably, can be said to be true.

You muddled your position with the "robbery is robbery" comment, incidentally.

The difference here, however, is that in mandating stricter punishments based on the severity of a crime, those additional punishments are based on tangible differences in the crime committed.

To use the bar example, had someone simply thrown a rock through the window of a "straight" bar where the management had previously thrown them out, with precisely the same result (wounded patron, etc), they would face a less severe punishment than the ones who attacked the "gay" bar.

Again, to reiterate, punishing motive. Not severity. The only difference in the crime is why it was committed.

Now, the argument that we should, as a society, reinforce that certain behaviors are unacceptable has some merit. But hate crime legislation is only peripherally about behavior. We already have laws in place, after all, to cover any behavior that would theoretically land one afoul of the legal system. To levy additional punishments based simply on the motive of the crime does not afford those being charged with said crime equal rights; it degrades the rights of the bigot. Punishment based on motive is inherently unfair.

The argument that bigots are evil bastards and therefore deserve to have their rights degraded could be raised, but I assume that people have better sense than that.

 

[Halifirien]

To levy additional punishments based simply on the motive of the crime does not afford those being charged with said crime equal rights; it degrades the rights of the bigot. Punishment based on motive is inherently unfair.

It doesn't degrade the right of a bigot to be a bigot, though. There are no laws on the books forcing anyone to like Jews or gay people or Muslims. We only have laws against targeting them specifically to assault them or intimidate them or otherwise try to keep them "in their place."

 

[Raesvelg]

The fundamental fact is that the punishments are not equal, based not on the crime, but rather the motive of the person committing the crime.

If you can agree that the punishments are not equal (and it's rather obvious that they're not), then we're left with relatively little to argue about, from a Constitutional perspective.

You're arguing justification. It's okay to be unfair to bigots; they're bigots after all, and their behavior is unacceptable.

Is it somehow then more acceptable to assault someone who you don't hate? Does anyone really commit crimes of passion without passion? What about committing crimes for pay? Is that a better motive than passion?

 

[Trippyhippy]

The fundamental fact is that the punishments are not equal, based not on the crime, but rather the motive of the person committing the crime.

If you can agree that the punishments are not equal (and it's rather obvious that they're not), then we're left with relatively little to argue about, from a Constitutional perspective.

You're arguing justification. It's okay to be unfair to bigots; they're bigots after all, and their behavior is unacceptable.

Is it somehow then more acceptable to assault someone who you don't hate? Does anyone really commit crimes of passion without passion? What about committing crimes for pay? Is that a better motive than passion?

It is obvious the punishments are not equal. What you seem to be missing is that the crimes are not equal because of the motive.

 

[Halifirien]

If you can agree that the punishments are not equal (and it's rather obvious that they're not), then we're left with relatively little to argue about, from a Constitutional perspective.

I do agree they're not equal punishments. I should hope they're not, because I want hate-based crimes that target minorities to be punished more severely. My only disagreement is with the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional for our society to ignore any consideration of bigoted behavior and treat two versions of a crime as though they're the same.

Is it somehow then more acceptable to assault someone who you don't hate? Does anyone really commit crimes of passion without passion? What about committing crimes for pay? Is that a better motive than passion?

I pretty much think assault is wrong across the board and should be discouraged -- which it is, because we punish it under the law -- but I never went in for the "All crimes are hate crimes" line of reasoning becuase it generally comes from people who aren't regularly targeted for them. Enhanced sentencing is just that little bit of icing on the cake that says "Not only are you a criminal, but you're an asshole as well and the other assholes need to be reminded."

I know you'll say we shouldn't punish people extra for being assholes, but I'm unsympathetic to that claim.

 

[Raesvelg]

Then we are at an impasse. I fear we'll have to disappoint Tristam and let this particular argument lapse, in that instance.

It is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment guarantees us equal protection under the law. Not equal protection so long as you're not a racist asshole. You can argue that the higher mandatory punishments are justifiable, but that does not make them constitutional.

 

[Lukas]

You are aware that courts do consider motive when sentencing right? Pecuniary gain anyone? Not to mention that although bigoted thoughts are protected under the First Amendment, actions manifesting from those thoughts are most certainly not tolerated under Anti-discrimination legislation (nor, as far as I am aware, under the Constitution). Why is that? Because there is a different between speech or expressive conduct, and a crime.

The two hypothetical crimes we're throwing about are not the same. To quote Chief Justice Rehnquist: "[hate crimes] are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." (Wisonsin v. Mitchell). That's not to say that murder in general does not cause societal harm, but with hate crimes that harm is broader.

It is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment guarantees us equal protection under the law. Not equal protection so long as you're not a racist asshole.[/I]

Equal protection in what sense? In relation to speech, it is guaranteed, so long as the differentiation between speech and impermissible conduct is made by the courts. A bigot can still picket. A bigot can still boycott. They just can't kill a person.

If we're talking about equal protection in terms of the alleged claims that this legislation affords minorities with certain "special rights" (which I am fairly certain is not what you're selling here Raes, just addressing it for future reference) then... that's ridiculous. I assure you anyone can be the victim of a hate crime.

 

[Halifirien]

Then we are at an impasse.

Impasse isn't bad. Reasonable people can disagree on stuff like this. I don't think you're a jerk or anything. lol

 

[Raesvelg]

Equal protection in what sense? In relation to speech, it is guaranteed, so long as the differentiation between speech and impermissible conduct is made by the courts. A bigot can still picket. A bigot can still boycott. They just can't kill a person.

A non-bigot just can't kill a person either. The distinction between speech and impermissible conduct is not the issue at hand, however. The issue is unequal sentencing for the same crime, based on a perceived distinction of motive.

If we're talking about equal protection in terms of the alleged claims that this legislation affords minorities with certain "special rights" (which I am fairly certain is not what you're selling here Raes, just addressing it for future reference) then... that's ridiculous. I assure you anyone can be the victim of a hate crime.

Oh no, having been targeted for what could arguably have been considered a "hate crime" myself (verbally assaulted and physically threatened for being white and nearby), I'm well aware that certainly the vast majority of hate crime legislation is blind to the particulars of the victim, focusing instead on the particulars of the offender.

Which is not to say that everyone realizes that, sadly. I'd wager good money that a significant fracton of the more dangerous bigots in our society see it precisely as a case of special rights for minority groups.

As for pecuniary gain, while it is frequently listed as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of crimes (murder in particular), it holds no special status than I am aware of mandating additional severity of sentencing under the law. It may be taken into account, certainly, but just because you killed someone for money doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to increase your sentence.

Rehnquist's argument has always bothered me, as you can take that precise quote, and replace the words [hate crimes] with [hate speech] and it still functions in precisely the same fashion with the same level of accuracy.