I was cruising LaShawn's site and found her inveighing against thoughtcrime. It makes sense, but I think there are two important thigs she's overlooking in actual hate crimes. Motive & Method.
As I said in my Boohabian Hate Crime Standard.
To win a hate crime prosecution, the prosecution has to show a clear expression of group hatred through the felony. It is not a "hate crime" merely because the perpetrator hates people of that group. The crime has to be intended to communicate that hatred of the group to the victim. The idea that police search for hidden hate motivations is antithetical to the notion of hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't enhance your punishment merely for thinking bad thoughts. They enhance your punishment for committing your crime in a manner that creates added psychological injury to the victim and society.
In other words, hate crime is terrorism. It is a crime done not simply out of animus against the victim, but against a group. Committing a hate crime means, or should mean if prosecutors have their heads on straight, that it is a crime designed to intimidate people who were not around. You don't spraypaint 'Nigger' on somebody's sidewalk just to intimidate the residents of one house, but everyone in the neighborhood. You don't car bomb a police station to get back at the cops who arrested you, but to intimidate everyone who depends on the police.
We ask juries all the time to assess the motive of the suspect. Its the entire difference between first and second degree murder. What did the suspect intend to accomplish with this crime. That's the difference. A Hate Crime Standard should mean nothing more nor less than this, was it a terroristic crime. Was it designed to intimidate, or to 'send a message'? If so, then I think rational people will understand and have even less tolerance for that kind of criminal, and their acts.
hate crime is terrorism. It is a crime done not simply out of animus against the victim, but against a group.
Superb!!!!
Mr. Bowen, my hat is off to you for this stroke.
Mr. Brown. Do you disagree with this equation? If so, on what grounds? You've previously expressed a point of view somewhat consistent with this point of view, but taken from the opposite perspective. I thought you were on point because it bothered me too to hear empty heads and blathering pieholes stinking up the airwaves with specious conflation of criminals and terrorists.
MDCB has raised a point clearly distinct from that, and the case he's made seems rather neat, reat, and complete.
In the current climate of consciousness gripping the country, forensic criticism of the administration's foreign policy fuster cluckery is being declared as treasonous, damaging to our prospects, etc..., as if mere statement of disagreeable facts comprised "thought criminality".
Given the indisputable history of racist terrorism in the U.S., up to and including the Byrd lynching, it seems absurd on the face of it to deny that crimes committed with terroristic intent are anything but terrorism.
Posted by: cnulan at January 24, 2005 11:08 PM
I tend to agree with the critics that hate crime laws are unneeded. Just prosecute under the current laws and that's enough.
But the point about 1st degree murder vs. 2nd degree murder is a good point that the critics don't want to face.
The "funniest" part of the hate crime laws though, is that one of the first people prosecuted under such a law, was Black.
Posted by: EBrown at January 24, 2005 10:31 PM