Libertarian columnist Steve Chapman explains why he's against hate crimes bills. It's an argument I tried to make, but stumbled over, in the previous post. Chapman writes on "the defining defect of hate crimes bills: It is intended to provide extra penalties for criminals who think incorrect thoughts."
I'm also reminded that a few years back activists supported a hate crimes bill that would have required a step-up in punishment. Matthew Shepard's killers were given life in prison, and so the step-up would, presumably, have been death. But these activists, including the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, were against the death penalty, too, so it wasn't clear exactly what they wanted to inflict on those who murdered Shepard. It's reminiscent of today, with the Human Rights Campaign wanting the feds to ensure more robust prosecutions of hate crimes, but also demanding to "Free the Jena 6" despite these thugs' vicious, unprovoked, racially motivated attack on a white teenager. It's a red flag of how "hate crimes" prosecutions rapidly become politicized, one way or the other.
Changing gears, the Wall Street Journal has an excellent op-ed, "The Queerest Denial," on the Iranian government's murderous homophobia-and the American left that figures any regime that really, truly hates us (that is, the U.S.) can't be bad.
More on hate crimes laws and why they're such a bad idea, from IGF's archives, here.
20 Comments for “Crime and Punishment”
posted by Casey on
Now, I may be wrong, but I was of the opinion that this hate crime bill, originally known as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (before more emotionalist activist groups decided it should be named the Matthew Shepard Act), didn’t provide for an enhanced punishment, but rather for federal funding and assistance of investigation for these crimes. Yes, in the Shephard case they got the perps, but it the investigation cost a fortune, and when you’re dealing with small towns with limited resources, the reality is that many such local PDs may not be willing to allocate those resources to investigate anti-gay or anti-trans crimes. Federal assistance means more hate crimes investigated and prosecuted, which means greater potential for punishment, which hopefully means deterrance, and at the least means more retributive justice. While there’s a good argument to be made that the federal government may not have authority to do this, I don’t think there’s much of an argument that this is punishing thoughts differently – just increasing the odds that criminals will in fact be punished at all. If I’m wrong, and there is an enhanced punishment provision in the bill, then that’s a different story, of course.
posted by Southern Decency on
So, because Iran is homophobic, lefties should support bombing attacks there? Should they support bombing and regime change in Jamaica as well? If not, what does the homophobia of a country have to do with its deserving to be bombed?
posted by Southern Decency on
Oh, and did anyone of those who don’t want to bomb Iran actually SAY that Iran “can’t be bad”, as Miller claims?
It’s ALWAYS bad if partisans (ideological and political) erect strawmen and tell us what the other side thinks. It’s bad when the left puts words into Andrew Sullivan’s mouth all the time, and it’s equally bad when “Independents” tell us that anyone opposed to *war* with Iran thinks the Iranian regime isn’t bad. Just because it’s bad doesn’t mean we have to go to war with it.
posted by Karen on
Stricter punishment for hate crimes is not “thought policing”; you see, you can think hate as much as you want. Think think think. Go right ahead.
What stricter punishment for hate crimes does is acknowledge the additional victims in these crimes: the rest of the targeted group. A hate crime is at its core a threat to the larger group – see what happens to people like you? – and threats are not protected speech. These people are not simply criminals, they are terrorists.
posted by Avee on
SD, give me a break. The lefties denounced the Columbia U prez for critizing the guy and calling him a dictator. Wake up.
posted by Portland Moderate on
I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t the law try to determine intent (i.e. thought) all the time? We have manslaughter, murder-2, murder-1 and capital murder, but in every case the victim is dead. The difference is the motivation of the killer, the circumstances, etc. That sounds real close to “the thoughts” of the perp.
The logical extension of your argument is that all crimes resulting in death, should be tried and sentenced the same
posted by Southern Decency on
Avee:
Who are those Iran-loving “lefties” anyway? Anyone who doesn’t vote Republican? Or some extremely fringe groups? Or the 70% who don’t want Bush to attack Iran (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm)? I haven’t seen on any liberal blog, heard on liberal talk radio or from a liberal person anything good about the Iranian regime.
Pointing out that it’s rude to invite somebody and then insult him before he speaks doesn’t mean imply that the invitee is consideren a good person!
posted by Mark on
The Iranian regime is pretty bad, but any government that dislikes Bush can’t be all bad.
posted by bls on
Portland Moderate is of course correct. I can never figure out why people continue to make this specious argument; crimes of passion are considered less serious than premeditated murders, for another example. Of course “state of mind” counts.
posted by ETJB on
Well, Libertarians also want to oppose civil rights laws and return to the era of ‘white only’ and ‘restricted’ signs. So, I would be cautious about using them as an expert on civil rights, when they oppose them,
“Matthew Shepard’s killers were given life in prison.”
If the death penatly existed, that might be an option with a hate crimes law, depending on how it is written. If you oppose the death penalty then you probably favor life.
Again, you seem intent on totally misrepresenting what the “Jena 6” case is all about. If the six young men are not being accused of a hate crime then its is because (a) their is no applicable state law, (b) their is no evidence that they picketed their target because of his race.
Remember that the current Federal Hate Crime laws does not apply to such situations. Yes, it could if the code was changed, but it pretty silly of you to oppose the attempts to revised the federal code and then whine that the old code is not good enough.
The “Jena 6” is a good example of how must Americans do not understand basic constitutional law. I see this with conservatives here, and I have seen this with liberals elsehwere.
Again, I know many progressive and left-wing LGBT organizations that have been very, very criticial of the Iranian government. In fact, this would describe the basic philosophy of ALL the international LGBT human rights organizations.
How many LGBT right-wing organizations do much about homophobia in Iran, but occashionally complain, or in Iraq, where they generally close their eyes?
For that matter, how many American high school or college students are taught muchu about human rights education in general, let alone what it comes to LGBT people?
posted by Craig2 on
Based on what is happening now to Iraqi lesbians and gays at the hands of Moqtadr al Sadr’s Baghdad-based Mahdi Army, one suspects any precipitous intervention would render the already ghastly plight of Iranian lesbians and gay men even worse…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by ETJB on
Agreed. This does not mean that we should be silent at human right violations from any nation. If the President of Iran can to speak nearby me, I would be the first to protest his nation’s anti-gay polices.
Yet, I suspect that their are some people who only want to bring up the Iranian revolutions mililitant homophobia to justify a US invashion.
posted by Bobby on
I don’t know why people keep saying republicans want a war with Iran. People, it’s just talk, just like those empty threats to North Korea.
A war with Iran is impossible. We don’t want a draft, we don’t want to raise taxes, we don’t want to sacrifice our way of life, and we don’t want to deal with more suicide bombers which is what Iran surely has. And if Iran builds a nuclear plant, we’ll just use surgical bombing, it’s been done before and it works.
Our chance to invade Iran was after those bastards captured the US embassy and took hostages. Unfortunately, Carter was too much of a pussy to do that, so instead he sent two CIA missions that failed.
So now he goes around telling the entire world how to make peace when he coudln’t even get Iran to return hostages until the day Reagan became president.
In other words, there will be no war with Iran unless they actually force us to go to work with them, which is unlikely.
posted by Brian Miller on
stricter punishment for hate crimes does is acknowledge the additional victims in these crimes: the rest of the targeted group
This is often an (emotional) argument without basis that is brought up by proponents of designating gay people as a special class of people.
Unfortunately, it’s also a big fat lie. “Hate crimes” special rights bills don’t protect minority groups from majority attack. They’re just clubs used by prosecutors.
Look at New York, for instance. Two men who robbed a gay man who ended up fleeing and getting hit by a car were charged with a “hate crime.”
According to Karen, that charge is “protecting gay men from being targeted by non-gay men.”
Except that both the men who robbed the guy were queer, too.
Ooops.
At least we gay people are “protected” from “anti-gay hatred perpetrated by other gay people.”
Egads, the absurd knots statists tie us in!
posted by Lori Heine on
“Well, Libertarians also want to oppose civil rights laws and return to the era of ‘white only’ and ‘restricted’ signs.”
No, Libertarians have watched the way the private sector has outpaced the government in making room for gays and other minorities and concluded — with good reason — that laws mandating antidiscrimination are not necessary.
Bigotry is bad for business. It’s terrible P.R. The best weapon against it is negative publicity — which is what companies that discriminate are sure to get.
Bigoted businessowners want to think of themselves as martyrs if the government tries to forbid their discriminatory practices. That sort of mind feeds on the sense of victimhood they get when they feel (perhaps with some justification) that the government is pushing them around.
They can hardly retaliate against disapproving consumers.
They can just sit around, feel sorry for themselves — and go out of business.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
Your Libertarian spin may work on other people, but it is not going to work on me. The Libertarian Party and many libertarians WANT TO ABOLISH CIVIL RIGHTS.
They believe that the private sector ought to be unregulated. That an employer has every right to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, disability, sex, sexality, etc.
This was pretty much were America was prior to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. An era of ‘white only’ and ‘restricted’ signs.
Civil rights laws are unecessary? The free market should be unregulated? Feel free to advocate these views, and run for office, but people who oppose civil rights laws as a rule are probaly not the best people to trust when it comes to civil rights legislation.
The private sector has “made room” for women, disabled, ethnic/racial minorties because it had to due to state and federal law.
Some businesses have “made room” for gays. Great. But how are such voluntary polices enforced, absent a law, they are not.
Libertarians have ‘concluded’ that America would be a better place if only the private sector was its own soverign nation. If only we could return to pre-civil rights era days.
How is bigotry bad for business? A friend of mine is fired because she is a lesbian. The company, of coarse, denies it would EVER do such mean thing. She is replaced and left to fend for herself.
It is hard to get bad publicity, when the company will deny it and threaten to sue anyone who says otherwise. This is assuming a thing would occur, when in certain communites people would not be too upset if companies did not ‘make room’ for women, disabled, minorties, gays.
Did many private companies go out of business because they restricted black and Jews pre-1964? Did many companies go out of business because they excluded the disabled prior to 1990?
Did many companies go out of business for excluding women or allowing sexual harassment?
No, that is just a smoke screen argument for what is the real libertarian position; private businesses have a right to (pretty much) do whatever they want.
That a ‘white only’ or ‘restricted’ or ‘no gays’ sign is a wonderful thing. That civil rights, health and safety standards, and just about every single government law, regualation, program, or institution is evil and most be given to an all-powerful, soverign, private sector to do with what it wills.
I have Libertarian friends. Its great to think about/talk about this stuff. I think how third party’s are treated is wrong and have worked to change it. But, lets not pee on someone’s leg and call it lemonade.
posted by ETJB on
Hate crimes are civil rights are not ‘special rights’, ‘quotas’ or un-constitutional. These are all buzzwords used to try and make their opposition to civil rights seem reasonable.
If two men rob another man because he or she is gay, or straight (white or black, etc). That may be a hate crime (depending on state law). Likewise if some one randsacks a Chuch, Temple, Mosque or Syngagoue, that may be a hate crime.
Detials and intent DO Matter in the law. If the two robbers are gay, then that casts doubt on why thy robbed some one. Just like their is a difference between planning out and executing a murder versus manslaughter.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Some businesses have “made room” for gays. Great. But how are such voluntary polices enforced, absent a law, they are not.
So you’re saying that all businesses are liars and homophobes, that they never enforce their policies, and that they need to be punished with laws.
That explains a lot.
What I think is more likely is that gay liberals are demanding protections from being fired because they are gay — such as their member Bonnie Bleskachek exploited for years to keep her job and even be promoted.
It’s a pity that Minnesota’s ENDA law prevented Bleskachek from being fired — but that’s what ENDA is all about, and why liberal gays support it.
Hate crimes are civil rights are not ‘special rights’, ‘quotas’ or un-constitutional.
Oh really? How is it a “civil right” that, if a black or gay person has a crime committed against them, the amount of money and resources available to prosecute it will be will be greater and the punishment of the perpetrator will be more harsh?
Liberals rail a lot about “pre-1964” America, but what their words make obvious is that they don’t object to segregation and disparate treatment; they just are upset that they weren’t on the positive side of it. Their current “hate crimes” fetish is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite Jim Crow in their favor.
posted by ETJB on
I said: Some businesses have “made room” for gays. Great. But how are such voluntary polices enforced, absent a law, they are not.
Your reply: So you’re saying that all businesses are liars and homophobes…
No, I simply pointed out fact. A voluntary EEO policy can not be enforced by th law. Also how is such a policy going to be enforced? I do not believe that all businesses are liars, but only a fool would believe that they are always telling the truth or that they should be left free to do whatever the hell they want.
Your obvious attempt to paint me is somehow radically bigoted against business or the private sector is balony.
That explains a lot.
What I think is more likely is that gay liberals are demanding protections from being fired because they are gay — such as their member Bonnie Bleskachek exploited for years to keep her job and even be promoted.
It’s a pity that Minnesota’s ENDA law prevented Bleskachek from being fired — but that’s what ENDA is all about, and why liberal gays support it.
Hate crimes are civil rights are not ‘special rights’, ‘quotas’ or un-constitutional.
Oh really? How is it a “civil right” that, if a black or gay person has a crime committed against them, the amount of money and resources available to prosecute it will be will be greater and the punishment of the perpetrator will be more harsh?
Liberals rail a lot about “pre-1964” America, but what their words make obvious is that they don’t object to segregation and disparate treatment; they just are upset that they weren’t on the positive side of it. Their current “hate crimes” fetish is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite Jim Crow in their favor.
posted by ETJB on
“What I think is more likely is that gay liberals are demanding protections from being fired because they are gay.”
No, people should generally not be fired for being gay. It is a simple principle. Or their race, color, religion, etc.
Bonnie Bleskachek’s sex or sexual orientation did not keep her from being fired. Their was a system in place, thanks to the law, to address accusations of discrimination and harassment.
“If a black or gay person has a crime committed against them,”
(1) Hate crime laws are not unconstitional. (2) Hate crime laws are often targeted at more then specific individuals but an entire class of people.
Pre-1964 America is nota ‘rail’ but a reality. Perhaps if you studied our history a tad bit more honestly, then you would know that.
I object to segregation and discrimination. I do not support Jim Crow laws. I will leave such things to the poliical right in this nation.