Anyway, why is the federal government doing this? Federal crimes are supposed to be restricted to things outside the jurisdiction of any single state.

> We can't read minds

Agreed, but intent often plays into murder charges. This just attempt to read minds, it attempts to read souls.

Agreed. These are really thought crimes. Scary stuff.

The vote shows it was a partisan issue. No surprise there. The party in control likes to pass feel-good measures. It would be a lot harder to pass some substantive law - like one that enforces more security at the US-Mexico border or something that makes US schools more competitive with other countries' schools.

Obama and the Democrats continue to pander to very small but very vocal minorities. That's all this is. The best Congress can do for gays is pass a law that basically recognizes people don't like gays.

Wonder if this will apply to black on white crime? Will cracker killers get nailed on this or do they as usual get a free ride.

I really hate^H^H^H^Hdislike laws like this.

Group rights and thought crimes. Thank goodness. I feel so much safer.

Why not just pass a law that says white males will be punished more severely than everyone else for our "original sin"?

Needs special protection = inferior. Is that the point, after all?

Let's face facts, this law fits in perfectly with the narrative of the Left which, in short, is: "White males are the most destructive & evil group the world has ever known. Anything that can be done to suppress this group is a good thing!"

Whenever I hear about initiatives like this I always think back to a conversation I had a while back with a Chinese-Canadian friend of mine. We were discussing racism and he said with absolute sincerity, "I can't be a racist, I'm not white."

Three words came to mind: "Igorance is Bliss!"

When I first heard of “hate crimes” bills, I had a similar reaction but I later realized there are true differences between hate crimes and other crimes. The motives and thoughts are different but this is irrelevant. The difference is the effect of the crime.

If I go to a synagogue and write “Rabbi Smith must die” it is very different from writing “Jews must die.” One is a threat to a particular person and one is a threat to a large group of people. These are different crimes.

Let’s go to the civil rights era and compare two crimes. In crime one, a man is killed in a jealous rage. In crime 2, an uppity black man is lynched. Both crimes are murders but in the lynching there is an implicit threat to all blacks who want to exercise their civil rights. The effect of the crimes is different and the punishment should be as well.

I will support these legislations when I will see a Non-White criminal judged of hate crime on a White victim. Until then, I just see it as pandering for the Far-Left voting block.

"We can't read minds"

Reminds me of the Though Police.

Another point, its harder to convict someone of a hate crime than it is on Murder one. Have these bozo's considered a murderer can get off easier this way?

Above: I meant to say "Thought Police"...nothing like starting off the day with a spelling error!

Cheers!

If I go to a synagogue and write “Rabbi Smith must die” it is very different from writing “Jews must die.” One is a threat to a particular person and one is a threat to a large group of people. These are different crimes.

The Quran is used to incite many people to murder, and in fact, commands that people murder or at least force the conversion of the infidel. The Bible also has similar tripe, but the gullible who believe, sans evidence, in the Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, manage to yeah, uh-huh all the stuff about stoning your neighbors for adultery.

So...where are you on the Quran as an incitement to hate crimes?

"I can't be a racist, I'm not white"

Is this Chinese-Canadian pal of yours vaguely aware of the Rape of Nanking? You know, when the Japanese Master Race slaughtered a couple of hundred thousand Chinese because they were an inferior brand of yellow people? Does Rwanda ring a bell? Darfur? I've encountered the same brain-dead mentality, & I don't know how to reason with it, either.

Curtis, the effect of both crimes on the dead man's loved ones is the same. Yes, the KKK is sending out an implicit threat to all blacks. But just as importantly, they are sending out an implicit message to all whites - namely, that dead niggers aren't worth making a fuss or sending someone to jail over. The way to combat this mentality is not to impose extra punishments, but to impose exactly the same punishment as if the victim had been white. All of us - black, white, & whatever - have EQUAL dignity & right to live in freedom. The law must reflect this.

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I think that Curtis has a valid point about differentiating between a threat/crime perpetrated against an individual versus against an entire group. On the other hand, Martin's rebuttal makes sense too.

I see this law making sense in some cases-for example, it seems as though the penalty for, say, spray-painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house should be greater than spray-painting a swastika somewhere random. But I can also see the law being misused and difficult to define and apply.

What I don't understand though, are the comments on how this law would give special protection to certain groups. Is there anything in the proposal that specifies certain groups for special consideration? Seems to me like it's an equal-opportunity protection law (although whether it would be equally applied remains to be seen)

At first blush, it does seem a little like the thought police. But to expand on the point that Crid made, our criminal code already takes intent into account - a person is subject to different penalties based on his mens rea at the time of the offense. E.g. first degree murder (premeditated) vs. second degree murder (crime of passion) vs. reckless homicide; all of the victims are equally dead, but we consider the killers culpable to different degrees. Do opponents of hate-crime legislation consider this to be unfair and discriminatory as well?

I was thinking about this the other day but in a slightly different context. If I lean out my window and yell a racial epithet at someone walking by, that's hate speech, right?
What about when guys (and this happens all the time in my crappy neighborhood) lean out the window and yell when I walk by, and then proceed to scream "bitch!" when I don't respond? I think if one's going to count the other one should too.

What I don't understand though, are the comments on how this law would give special protection to certain groups.

Essentially this will only ever be used on white males. Short of some other non-white group that is large enough to be obvious enough to be whacked by the fibbies, you will never see any other group hit with this.

The law should have been changed that instead of a "hate crime" as a stand alone law, it should have been made as a "special circumstances" on any level of crime -- from misdemeanor vandalism (the swastika on a wall) to murder, etc -- that allows a prosecutor to elevate the crime to felony and allow the judge to enhance the punishment -- 6 months max becomes up to 5 years.

The argument that a sprayed swastika on a synagogue should count more than a random tag is essentially based on whether or not that tag is a public act used to intimidate an entire group of people.

The assumption that hate-crime laws are not needed is based on the idea that really, if we'd all just wake up and smell the coffee, we'd all realized that all groups in the US are equally safe... and if they'd all just quit flying off the handle at the least sign of "hate" that we'd all be a lot better off.

Is there a sense of entitlement about being safe? For example, do I as a woman have the "right" to walk anywhere, through any neighborhood, without being messed with? And if someone does, I can go crying straight to the police and the DA's office and expect someone else to do my fighting for me? Of course, if I do my own fighting, I could be arrested, or even sued by my would-be victimizers.

There may be other laws that could apply for threats and intimidation other than "hate crime".

I agree that it's odd that name-calling and threats seem to be just fine and dandy if it's personal bullying or harassment - and personal bullying is still sorta legal, ain't it? Is bullying or personal harassment really legal? Can someone follow me around calling me some gender-neutral insult like "asshole" and that's not a crime? And then if I hit him, THAT's a crime? But if he calls me a "bitch" then he's committed a crime?

A situation where the hate-crime law or the civil rights act could apply is in male dominated workplaces like metal shops or electricians unions. I have heard stories of women and blacks who were attacked, booby-trapped, and otherwise put into serious physical danger... but again, is booby-trapping a ceiling outlet so that your black colleague who climbs to fix it is shocked so severely that he falls off a 20 foot ladder... is that a hate crime? Jeez, they need a good beating no matter which law is used.

I'm also thinking of Hungary, which is seeing a surge in crimes against Roma (Gypsies) - killings, house burnings, running families out of town. If the Roma had really committed any crimes they could be taken through the courts, so I think that the people who attacked them didn't really have any legitimate grounds for complaint... they just wanted to hurt someone.

Although I was the target of a lot of bullying growing up, I don't think the best solution is legislation. Most of what happened with me was junior high school bitchiness and cattiness, very hurtful, but not illegal. And, I hate to say it, but the social ills of juveniles are practice for later... even ostracism, shunning, name-calling, minor shoving, fistfights. I think people gotta learn to deal with a certain amount of shoving in life or they'll be forever wusses.

Bullying - Columbine was payback for that. "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

Sorry... I don't have a coherent position on the hate crime thing other than that hate crimes are bad, and other laws should be strengthened so we don't need a special law to protect just SOME of the weak.

An Ohio legislator wants stiffer penalties for crimes against Judges. As a CPA, we need tougher penalties for crimes against CPA's. Amy, shouldn't we also have stiffer penalties for crimes against writers? Maybe that would have prevented Bank of America's crime against you!

Hamsa,

Oh for goodness' sake! Grow a pair! (your choice, of course) What if a woman calls you a bitch? What if you were to use the phrase "male chauvinist pig" or the words "dickhead" or "prick"? What if you referred to "testosterone poisoning"? Jail?

This is exactly why "special" categories of crime, i.e., special classes of victim, are absurd.

I defended Hate Crime in theory but I do not think they are necessary now. When the KKK was intimidating (and killing) civil rights activists, Hate Crime legislation would have been appropriate. Fortunately, there is currently no significant violent, bigoted organization.

IMO, when Hate Crime laws were needed, they could not be passed. Now that they are no longer needed, they pass easily. Bigots of all stripes are on the run and we should celebrate our progress not legislate unneeded laws.

"it sends a message"

Argh ... the purpose of the legal system isn't to "send messages" to people. If you want to "send messages" to people, write a blog or column, or pay for time on TV, don't abuse the legal system.

Let me be clear. I HATE the notion of thought crime.

By extension, I DESPISE hate crime legislation, because it is inherently the former.

However, the general idea seems to be a back door way to keep violent offenders in jail longer, and away from the public at large, without fighting the much more difficult legislative battle to change the sentencing mins & maxes, as well as to offer the prosecuting D.A.s an additional tool in the pursuit of public protection.

Thinking about it in those terms, I have to wonder if that isn't perhaps a battle best left for another day, since there are far more significant issues than whether or not a murderer gets 25 years instead of 20.

Jay R-
Way to totally miss the fucking point.

There are crimes that can be considered overtly hate crimes, like spraying a swastika on a synagogue, which someone already mentioned (although, there was a rash of swastika and racist-slogan graffiti in my area fairly recently, and when they caught the kids who were doing it, two of them were black. They were just being assholes. I can't remember whether they were charged with a hate crime or just vandalism though).

But it's a lot harder to quantify other crimes as hate crimes. Matthew Shepard? Probably a hate crime. But how many women get murdered by guys they pick up in bars? Hate crime? Aileen Wuornos? She was targeting men. Hate crime or opportunism? It doesn't seem right that two perpetrators of similar crimes might be given wildly different sentences if one was determined to be a hate crime.

If someone killed me for my purse, I would be very relieved that they didn't HATE me. Because I do so want to be loved!

"But how many women get murdered by guys they pick up in bars?"

Almost none, actually ... we had a discussion about this here a while back, and I dug up some stats and did some calculations; basically, as I recall, a woman has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being murdered by a man she picked up in a bar.

Alot of ignorant people are making out that only white people are capable of being racist. I don't subscribe to this notion at all for I noted far too many blacks or predominantly nonwhites(of any religion or shades of color) groups of people who are in fact have the most tendencies to be unjustifiably racist. Merely (verbally) hating or criticism or stating a viewpoint is not a crime but extreme vandalism or any kind of extreme acts of violence(unless under self defence or under duress) is a crime.

I think that mandating a higher sentence for one crime versus another because one is determined to be a 'hate crime,' under the vague and nebulous way it's defined and the inconsistent way it's enforced, is really a slap in the face for victims' rights.

A blogger on Feministing proposed using existing anti-terrorism laws instead of drafting new hate crime laws. Thoughts?

Hannibal Lecter would quite probably have eaten the Senator's liver if given the opportunity, yet he would be exempted from the charge of hate crime because he clearly said "Senator? Love your suit" in front of witnesses.

If you need anything else solved I'll be at my desk until beer:thirty.

Vi, Columbine wasn't about bullying. It was about a sociopath and a depressed nerd that wanted to make a statement.
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
(There was a better, more recent article in Time, but the Slate article popped up first when I googled it.) Initial reports were wrong, and the truth about the little assholes didn't come out until years later.

South Park had a great episode on Hate Crime legislation a few years ago. (2000's "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime.") Anybody remember it? The point was, most violent crime is hateful... whether I kill my husband because I caught him cheating on me, or you beat someone to death in a bar fight, or a kid gets jumped because he swishes his hips when he walks.

Oh, and Jay R, you ARE the very model of a modern "male chauvinist pig."

And I can get away with calling you that, 'cause I'm a girl. So there.

>"Oh, and Jay R, you ARE the very model of a modern "male chauvinist pig."

And I can get away with calling you that, 'cause I'm a girl. So there."

ahw, thank you. You are making me blush, but it IS nice to be recognized for my efforts! (As my mother used to say, "If you're going to do something, do it well.")