LifeSiteNews.com Meg Jalsevac November 14, 2006
Touted as pro-life and pro-family moderate who values his Catholic faith.
Within 24 hours of winning the bitter Pennsylvanian Senate race against incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, Democrat Senator-elect Bob Casey, Jr. let his real agendas show through. Citizenlink.org has reported that, the very day after the election, Casey announced that he would work in support of legislation to increase the scope of federal hate crimes law to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity as a victim group.
Casey was chosen by the Democratic party to run against Santorum because of his supposedly moderate Democratic views. Throughout the election race, Casey’s campaign touted him as a pro-life and pro-family moderate candidate who valued his Catholic faith.
However, Casey was immediately and unabashedly backed in his election bid by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a pro-gay activist group. On the HRC website, it claims “HRC flexed its political muscle and launched an extensive and strategic campaign in partnership with local organizations that resulted in a clear victory for fair-minded candidate Casey.”
According to the website, HRC raised over $375,000 for Casey’s campaign. It also claims that it supplied 4 office staffers and hundreds of volunteers to encourage Pennsylvanians to vote.
Casey thanked HRC the day after the election saying, “HRC got behind my campaign early and has been a tremendous help. I look forward to working with HRC’s incredible staff and membership, especially to advance hate-crimes legislation in the Senate.” In several election surveys Casey admitted that he opposed gay marriage but that he would support homosexual unions.
In October of last year, Casey was quoted in The Philadelphia Jewish Voice as saying “I don’t support gay marriage, but I also don’t support a constitutional amendment banning it. That would be tremendously divisive. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.”
Casey also admitted in similar surveys that he would support legislation that would increase penalties for crimes committed against an individual because of their sexual orientation.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, said, “It didn’t take long for his true colors to show throw. Too Many Pennsylvanians were misled and misinformed by Mr. Casey’s campaign rhetoric.”
Adding sexual orientation verbage to hate-crime legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of all Americans who oppose homosexuality. Gramley said, “Right here in Pennsylvania we know what hate- crimes legislation that includes ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ can mean to Christians. In 2004 we witnessed 11 Christians being arrested and charged with a hate crime for simply reading Scripture and singing choruses at a homosexual event.”
The event that Gramley referred to happened in October 2004 when 11 Christian protestors were arrested and held in jail for 21 hours on various charges. The protesters were protesting OutFest, a homosexual festival held in Philadelphia. The protesters were swarmed by members of a homosexual group but only the Christian protesters were taken into custody by police.
Soon after the event, it surfaced that the homosexual group had planned their actions well before the actual event. The coordinator of the homosexual event said “It’s our event, and we’re not going to permit vendors or community groups that conflict with the theme of the event.” He also publicly admitted that their actions infringed on the First Amendment rights of the Christians. No charges were brought against any of the homosexual individuals.
Santorum, decisively beaten by a 20% margin by Casey, was nationally renowned for his conservative views, especially on issues of life and family. He had previously voted against legislation that had attempted to include sexual orientation under the hate-crime umbrella.
Too late, Pennsylvania voters are finding out the hard way that Senator-elect Casey’s actions will speak much louder than his words.
I wonder what Dean thinks here? As I have said, a “pro-life” and “pro-family” Democrat is really an oxymoron. You just can’t accept a traditional (i.e. Christian) anthropology and be at home in the Democratic party. Any Democrat that claims to be “pro-life” is really a living contradiction, as his anti-life and anti-family philosophy is bigger than any particular view about abortion and the rest that he may have.
Now, no doubt some will argue that Casey is simply trying to protect a persecuted minority here. However, the alleged problem, and particularly the solution (“hate crime” legislation) is arises out of a false anthropology and misunderstanding of what exactly is a “crime” – in this case it promotes a “thought crime”. This of course is due to the fact that the persons underlying philosophy is in error about what man is (anthropology).
It is also interesting that the Dem’s, who ran on a theme of “practical governance”, first order of business centers around the cultural war – the real divide in America…
I think they are making a mountain out of a molehill. First, as Christians, we never want to see anyone made the victim of a hate crime – so I don’t see how you can spin being against hate crimes as anti-Christian.
Second, Casey’s stand against gay marriage, but for civil unions, (which I share) is very unpopular in the more liberal quarters of the Democratic party and in the gay community. I’ve heard commentators like, HBO’s Bill Maher, heap scorn on that position as hypocrisy, acceptance of discrimination and cowardice. So it would be completely wrong to describe Casey as pandering to the gay community. It’s a more likely he’s trying to appease them a little by saying. “I don’t want you to get married, but nobody should have the right to beat you to a bloody pulp either.”
The real test will be what consevative Democrats actually do about abortion. Will they keep their heads down and hope the storm blows over while doing nothing? Or will they actually introduce legislation designed to reduce the number of abortions by funding programs to curb unintended pregnancies, encourage adoption and cut public funding for repeat abortions. They have to at least do that in order back-up thier claims of being pro-life.
Dean,
I think it all comes back to anthropology. You see hate crimes as a positive, even a Christian thing to do. Conservatives see them as a negative, a species of thought police/crime, and certainly not Christian. For some reason, the simple fact that “beating someone to a pulp” is not a right under existing law (indeed it is already a severe crime) is not enough. You see civil unions as a good, Christians see them as sanctioning/supporting sin and against the good of society and the individuals themselves who are victims of said “unions”.
However, we do agree that abortion is important. Of course, the fact that you want to “reduce” abortions is the elephant in the living room. Making killing the unborn a crime (with real punishment as penalty) is the obvious real solution.
However, I think it is one of the safest bet’s you can make that the Dem’s will brush this issue under the rug. It does not fit into their anthropology – in fact, leaving the holocaust of the unborn steaming full speed ahead is true to their philosophy…
Christopher writes: “Conservatives see them as a negative, a species of thought police/crime . . . For some reason, the simple fact that ‘beating someone to a pulp’ is not a right under existing law (indeed it is already a severe crime) is not enough.”
Since we use state of mind all the time in determining whether or not a crime was committed or the seriousness of the crime, I don’t see what’s wrong with considering state of mind as an aggravating factor in the punishment of a crime.
For example, this is similar to what happens in domestic terrorism cases, in which the crime is considered to be more grave if it is done with the intention of intimidating or coercing the civilian population, or if it meets other criteria. For example, it would be a lesser crime to blow up a building in order to collect insurance money than if the same building were destroyed in the same manner in an attempt to influence U.S. foreign policy.
Hate crimes are considered to be more serious than comparable crimes because they are an attack on the identity of the person — in effect a small-scale terror attack designed to intimidate a particular group.
It is beyond me why such laws are considered anti-conservative.
Jim, “hate-crime” laws inevitably end-up punishing thought regardless of behavior, especially non-PC religious thought, i.e. largely Christian. One need to look no further that Canada and Australia for egregious examples of civil and criminal penalties being imposed on Christians simply for quoting the Holy Scripture.
Hate crimes in the US have never been defined to encompass thought or speech, but are limited to acts or threats of physical violence. Since the sincere advocacy of Christ’s message of love, hope and compassion could never be construed as a threat of physical violence it is absurd to state that hate crimes could inhibit religious expression by Christians.
According to the US Department of Justice:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm
The DOJ continues:
“Since the sincere advocacy of Christ’s message of love, hope and compassion could never be construed as a threat of physical violence it is absurd to state that hate crimes could inhibit religious expression by Christians.”
Dean, did you READ the article, or do you just choose to ignore the real practical consequences of thought crimes? These consequences are everywhere to be found, from current day Europe/Canada/Australia to all sorts of regimes, such as Soviet Russia? Or, is it simply a 10th grade debating tactic? Sometimes I really don’t think you know what words like “absurd” mean…
Why is the rape or murder of a heterosexual less heinous than a homosexual? Why is the rape and murder of a white woman less heinous than a black woman? Why is the rape and murder of a mobile man less heinous than a handicapped man?
Crime is crime. Once you insert identity politics into criminal justice, “equality under the law” ceases to have any meaning.
Further, once you elevate one group over another and thereby erode the principle of equal justice, it becomes just as easy to devalue another group given the right cultural circumstances.
Note 7. Dean writes:
Really? Christian faces court over ‘offensive’ gay festival leaflets
Erode the principle of equal justice under the law, and other freedoms erode along with it.
Note 9: I don’t think one can compare laws in the UK to laws in the US. They do not value freedom of speech to the same degree we do, where we consider it almost an absolute. Any group can still gather and spout whatever they want for whatever reason, short of threatening violence. The KKK still gathers in public on occasions.
In addition, the only ones attempting to pass legislation to stifle that awful Phelps man are Republicans (who really only started this legislation once the clan started picketing the funerals of people they actually cared about). Ironically (I think), the ACLU sided with Phelps.
While hate speech laws are, I must believe, completely unconstitutional, hate crime laws differ by merely increasing the penalties for violent crimes committed to attack a person for some quality, immutable or otherwise. I think I understand why the reasoning: personally, I would feel more violated by someone attacking me for my race than if someone just wanted to take my wallet. The former strikes to the core of who we believe we are, and it ends up affecting not just that victim but those who share some element of identity with the victim.
I’m not saying I support hate crime laws (I don’t know), but I understand the concept behind them.
Note 10.
Yes, exactly. But what happens when a homosexual murders another homosexual? Gay on gay abuse rates are higher than heterosexual rates. How about black on black crime? Black on black crime is a national epidemic. More blacks kill blacks than whites.
Do they get a lesser sentence for the same crime?
Or what happens when the crime is reversed, say a black man rapes a white woman? In the old days this was considered such a crime against white identity that the black man would hang for it.
Yes, you do understand it. It’s how the KKK justified lynching Black men for often minor crimes. Identity politics works both ways.
Fr. Hans writes: “Why is the rape or murder of a heterosexual less heinous than a homosexual? Why is the rape and murder of a white woman less heinous than a black woman? Why is the rape and murder of a mobile man less heinous than a handicapped man? . . . . But what happens when a homosexual murders another homosexual? Gay on gay abuse rates are higher than heterosexual rates. How about black on black crime? Black on black crime is a national epidemic. More blacks kill blacks than whites.”
I think you misunderstand how these laws work. The aggravating factor is not the gender or disability or sexual orientation of the victim per se. The aggravating factor is the criminal’s reason and intention behind the attack. So there is no legal reason why blacks or gays couldn’t be charged under a hate crime statute.
If you’re suggesting that we need not take one’s motive and intent into consideration when sentencing people for various crimes, well, I’m not so sure about that. While these can be used to increase a sentence, I can see where intent can be utilized to also reduce a sentence where the crime is committed while under extreme duress. This sometimes is used when women who suffer extreme physical abuse from their husbands end up retaliating. In such cases, I would probably recommend something less than life in prison, unlike a situation where one commits an assault or murder for other purposes (such as in the middle of a robbery).
You’re correct about it going both ways, of course, but I’m not sure there’s any ideal solution from a legal perspective. We have this belief in our American judicial systems that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. It should be neither too lenient nor too draconian. Creating generic sentences for the same physical outward crime would seem too simplistic by ignoring the circumstances surrounding why people do things, which I think is important. Of course, whether one can successfully prove one’s motive or intent in a court of law is another story.
Note 13,
I see your point as to a motivational component being part of the equation, but I am not sure how identity politics can be factored in here. In other words, from a equality before the law perspective (which I think is the most important perspective here), I don’t see how you can factor in race (as in a “hate crime”) and do anything other than create an unequal situation. Besides, 1st degree murder which is “malice of forethought” is quite enough, whether the person is motivated by hate for the color of someone’s skin, or he got cut off in traffic by the person 2 days ago. In other words, our existing laws are quite appropriate (or with a little tweaking) that we do not have to include the dubious categories of “hate crime” or “race crimes”…
Motive and intent are already taken into consideration in existing law. That’s why we have degrees of murder, for example. I am arguing that identity politics ought not to be enshrined in law. We’ve already experienced that with laws that discriminated against black people for crimes committed against white people. All people are equal under the law — even when they are guilty. There should be no discrimination against a law breaker because he comitted a crime against a homosexual instead of a white man. So he hates gays. So what? The hate is a spiritual and psychological issue, not a legal one. Sentence him for his crime, not his hate. It’s the same with gay on gay crime. Sentence a gay for his crime. Or do we hold the gay criminal to a different standard too because he killed a gay instead of a straight?
Sure there is. Hold all people equally accountable for the crimes they commit.
Again, that’s why you have distinctions between murder and manslaughter for example. Writing law based on identity politics however is not justice. That’s exactly what the segregationists did. Black criminals were handed out disproportionate sentences. This is exactly what the infusion of the “hate crime” concept into our legal system proposes for people who harass gays and any other victim group du jour. I argue to deal with them based on the harassment laws that already apply to all people. It’s called equitable justice.
Remember that the Civil Rights Movement was essentially a conservative movement in that it rolled back these unfair laws. It disallowed whites from seeing themselves as a victim group, that is, as suffering greater harm from blacks than they did from whites for the same crimes that in turn disproportionately punished the black lawbreaker. Put another way, it brought blacks into full citizenship with American laws that whites already enjoyed. Equitable justice.
Note 12. Jim writes:
Gender, sexual orientation, whatever the cause du jour, will determine whether or not a crime falls within the “hate crime” category. Thus, a murder of, say, a white male, will be treated differently than the murder of a white male homosexual. In either case, hate can be an aggravating factor but in effect two different standards of justice exist. The man who kills the homosexual over the heterosexual is subject to a harsher punishment even thought the crimes are the same.
So, if blacks or gays can be charged under a hate crime statute, why have the statute at all? Why not hold all people accountable to the same standard?
Of course what will happen in practice if identity politics is enshrined in law, is that victimhood will be attributed to the lawbreaker in cases where the victim is not a member of a victim group in order to lessen the sentence.
Our legal system has always allowed that criminal laws be applied with a measure of flexibility so that punishments are comensurate with the underlying circumstances of each individual crime. This is why judges have discretion in sentencing for most, although not all, crimes. As a society, we would expect, for example, that a man who steals an entire truck full of bread to sell on the black market would be punished more harshly than a man who steals a single loaf of bread to feed a hungry child.
Hate crime laws recognize that the underlying animus motivating a violent assault in a hate crime, add an additional dimension of malevolence to the crime which requires an additional and proportional increase in the severity of the punishement. As the DOJ notes, while all crimes of violence are devastating, crimes of violence motivated by group hatred have a particularly damaging impact on society.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm
By passing hate crime laws society is saying that the additional dimension of malevolence in a crime based on hate requires a comensurate increase in the severity of punishment meted out against the perpetrator. Furthermore this increased severity needs to be codified into law.
Fr. Hans writes: “The man who kills the homosexual over the heterosexual is subject to a harsher punishment even though the crimes are the same.”
The crimes may or may not be the same. In both cases it depends on WHY the crime was committed. I think as a matter of fact, hate crimes against minorities — crimes committed against them because of their minority status — are more common. But again, there is no legal reason why, say, a homosexual could not be prosecuted for a hate crime against a heterosexual. There is no reason why an atheist could not be prosecuted for a hate crime against a Christian, or vice versa. It depends on the evidence.
Note 18. Well sure, although in your example the definition of hate crime becomes functionally meaningless since it is applied to all people. In that case, let the current law do its work.
BTW, the largest number of crimes committed against minorities are from their own group, ie: gay on gay, black on black, etc.
Note 17. Ah, Dean, are you sure you want to make this case for gays? They are one of the most economically advantaged groups in American society (no kids to take care of).
As for the DOJ opionion piece, yes, violence is devasting to society. But do you really think passing a “hate law” will reduce violence? Just enforce the laws on the books. No identity politics needed. (Progressive policies helped destroy the cultural infrastructure that at one time contained the violence. Now Progressives are alarmed at their handiwork and think we should let them rewrite the law to fix it.)
Fr. Hans writes: “Well sure, although in your example the definition of hate crime becomes functionally meaningless since it is applied to all people. In that case, let the current law do its work.”
The law does apply to all people, but not to all crimes. In other words, the law does not discriminate for or against any group. Rather it more severely punishes different kinds of crimes.
Imagine, for example, an arsonist who burns down churches for his own entertainment, because they rarely have security systems and are easy to attack. Now imagine that the arsonist burns down the same churches, but this time because he wants to strike a blow against Christianity.
The first scenario would be a crime, but not a hate crime. The second scenario would be a hate crime. Same person, same destruction, but different crimes.
Here is what identity politics fused in the legal system leads to:
Duke’s Rush to Judgement
Note 21.
Sure it does. If assaulting a homosexual is a different crime than assaulting a heterosexual, then homosexuals are a favored group. There is no way around this. Moreover, if homosexuals fit into the “hate crime” victim group, then punishment of the lawbreaker will be different than if he had assaulted a heterosexual. If this is not the point of hate crime law, why have it all?
In both cases you arrest and try them for their crimes. The second arsonist might be more dangerous, in which case you press more law enforcement resources into action in order to aprehend him (like we do with all serial criminals), but we try him for his crimes, not his ideology.
Dean, actually it can be argued persuasively that “hate crime” legislation just exacerbates divisions within communities. Every single instance of violence inflicted on a designated group becomes a “hate” crime.
Fr. Hans writes: “If assaulting a homosexual is a different crime than assaulting a heterosexual, then homosexuals are a favored group.”
It isn’t a different crime. I think as a matter of fact it is more likely that a heterosexual would attack a homosexual than the reverse. But the reverse is certainly possible. For example, if a homosexual attacked a heterosexual *because* he was a heterosexual, that would be a hate crime. So no group is favored, even if some group transgresses the law more than others.
For example there are laws against domestic violence. As a matter of fact, males assault females more often than the reverse. But a female assaulting a male, even if less common, is just as much a crime.
Fr. Hans: “Moreover, if homosexuals fit into the ‘hate crime’ victim group, then punishment of the lawbreaker will be different than if he had assaulted a heterosexual. If this is not the point of hate crime law, why have it all?”
The relevant factor is the *reason* for the assault. If a homosexual assaults a heterosexual *because of* his heterosexuality, then the homosexual is guilty of a hate crime. The reason is the aggravating factor, not the orientation.
Fr. Hans: “In both cases you arrest and try them for their crimes. The second arsonist might be more dangerous, in which case you press more law enforcement resources into action in order to aprehend him (like we do with all serial criminals), but we try him for his crimes, not his ideology.”
The relevant factor is not ideology but intention. This also is the basis of domestic terrorism law.
Note 25.
Sure they are. Hate crimes assume a victim class. Again, you are stretching the class to include everyone (“no group is favored”), so why single out any group at all? Let the present law apply equally to everyone.
Well sure, conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. But why should the law against conspiracy, terrorist or otherwise, justify greater sanctions because one group got killed rather than another? If the terrorist blew up a gay bar because homosexuality is offensive to Islam, should the punishment be any greater than if he blew up an officers club? I don’t think so. Let the punishment be equitable no matter who was killed.
One aspect of this discussion that has been somewhat disorienting to me is the idea that hate crime laws somehow present potential barriers to Christians’ freedom of speech. Let me note some passages in the Bible that describe Christian conduct:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith . . .”
“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all . . .”
“To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.”
“Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness . . .”
[Concerning the servant spoken of in Isaiah] “He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.”
Given the above, what exactly is the Christian going to do that will put him afoul of hate crime laws?
Jim, in Canada a man took out a newspaper add which merely had a reference to a Bible verse that condemns homosexuality. He was sought out and fined under Canada’s hate crime law.
Christians are not necessarily these nice squishy things that never speak above a whisper. Never have been. St. Paul’s preaching caused riots. He is reported in the Acts, I believe, to have temporarily blinded a least one person. We have a prophetic role to fulfill. Most people don’t like it.
Sin is destructive to society and to individuals. The worse the sin, the worse the destruction. The fact that the Church also has the antidote for sin is just as important. Homosexuality is wrong, sexual immorality of all types is wrong. No matter what the culture says or how protected it wants to make certain types of sinful activity, the sinful nature of the activity does not change.
Behavior is always a matter of choice. All temptation can be overcome.
If one is going to consider homosexuals as a protected class, why not adulterers, polygimists, polyandry, etc. etc. It is a fact, Jim, that the push to make homosexuals a protectd class is specifically aimed at Chrisitianity.
Once again we come down to the nub–anthropology. For Christians a person is not defined by sexual preference. Homosexuality is singled out for greated criticism in the Bible because it is also a type of idolatry.
Hate Crime laws in every discussion of them I have ever seen have also included hate speech. Hate speech is any speech that is critical in any way of the protected class. If we follow this out to its logical conclusion, no one can say anything about anyone. We might as well all take vows of silence.
It sounds like hate crime laws in Canada and Europe are broader than those in the United States. In Germany, for example, advocacy or glorification of Nazi ideas is considered a crime. Hate crime laws in the United States, on the other hand, have never encompassed speech and we can recall that the ACLU, of all people, has litigated for the right of groups like the American Nazis, to hold demonstrations, in places like the predominently Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois.
So people who say America’s more narrow hate crime laws should be repealed because of some feature in a broader law in another country, but not found in US laws, are really comparing apples to oranges.
US constitutional law has held consistently that freedom of speech is a highly valued and protected freedom under the Bill of Rights. Speech can only be regulated under law if there is a “compelling state interest”, such as maintaining public order and safety, or upholding community standards of decency.
In America, the mere expression of an idea cannot be illegal. The law cannot stop a man from standing on a soap-box and saying, “Homosexuality is sinful”, but it can stop him if he says, “”Homosexuality is sinful, so if you see one, burn down his house and give him a beating as an example to others.” The former is the expression of an idea and is protected by the US constitution, the later is an incitement to violence and is not protected.
Note 29.
So why then, given that laws against incitement exist, should homsexuals be singled out as a protected class? The fact is, once homosexuals are designated as deserving special protection above ordinary citizens, then any criticism of homosexuality can be construed as incitement.
The truth is that hate crimes legislation is an attempt to give politically correct dogma legal force.
Fr. Hans writes: “So why then, given that laws against incitement exist, should homsexuals be singled out as a protected class?”
It would be helpful if you could actually cite the actual language of a law that in fact singles homosexuals out as a protected class. You keep insisting that there are such laws, but so far have provided no evidence.
In Oregon, for example, one laws talks about intimidation based on “race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.” [ORS 166.165] Note that the word “homosexuality” does not appear. The law protects everyone, not just homosexuals. In fact, if you look at the detail of the law, it talks not just about the person’s actual sexual orientation, but also about his or her perceived orientation. So if some, for example, beat up on heterosexual woman because he thought mistakenly that she was a lesbian, that would be a hate crime. Note that the Oregon law, as probably most hate crime laws, also protects religion.
Fr. Hans: “The fact is, once homosexuals are designated as deserving special protection above ordinary citizens, then any criticism of homosexuality can be construed as incitement.”
Well, I suppose anyone can construe anything. Where is the example of the person who was successfully prosecuted under a hate crime statute for merely expressing opposition to homosexuality?
You seem to think that including sexual orientation in hate crimes law only protects homosexuals. That’s like saying that including religion in such statutes only protects Jews. For just a moment, let’s enter the world of reality and look at actual data.
Every year the FBI publishes statistics on hate crimes. Here is a breakdown of the various kinds of hate crime:
Note that there were more incidents related to religion than to sexual orientation. Within the category of religion, there were 848 incidents against Jews, but also 115 incidents against Christians. So the law deals with both Christians and Jews, even though most of the indicents involve crimes against Jews. But we wouldn’t say that hate crime laws just “project Jews.”
Even in the case of race, there were around 3200 anti-black incidents reported, but also around 900 anti-white incidents. So hate crime law does not protect just one race.
In the sexual orientation category, the great majority of incidents involved anti-homosexual activity, but there were also 22 anti-heterosexual incidents reported. Again, the law protects everyone; it’s just that homosexuals are much more likely to be the targets. By the way, the base crimes related to hate crimes involved murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, assault, and intimidation. You can see all of these statistics for yourself at the FBI web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm
Given the kinds of serious crimes involved, and the fact that no one group is exclusively protected I just don’t see the validity of your argument. Now if you want to argue that a hate crime is no worse than any other crime — that crimes intentionally targeting specific groups are no worse than any other crimes — be my guest. I think that most people feel differently, and understand that a crime that essentially is an attack upon a group contains an aggravating factor that requires more punishment.
Jim writes:
I rest my case. Same crime, but if committed against a protected class, a different sentence is meted out. Throwing religion into the brew doesn’t convince me this a good idea either. If government can create a protected class, they can just as easily create an unprotected class (the unborn for example) given the right cultural circumstances. (Who said the thought police are not on patrol?)
etc. etc etc.
Do you really think you can legislate bias out of existence? Take the ACLU bias against Christianity for example. Are “hate crime” laws going to lessen that bias in anyway? Of course not. Crime is crime, no matter what the motive. Besides, much crime already carries a bias (crimes of passion for example) that get prosecuted fairly irregardless of the bias. The difference between gay on gay, or wife on husband, crime for example, is that these biases don’t rise to the level of a protected class.
Also, the numbers should not be taken at face value. For example, the courts have extended the American Disabilities Act to include obese people, women who cannot conceive, drug addicts, etc. in the disabled category. Does “hate crime” include fat people in the count? It probably does.
All the FBI statistics reveal is that crimes occur because of bias (no news here) but some biases are more important than others, at least enough to warrant a special category. But this is hardly an argument for increasing penalties against crimes committed against a special class.
So much for equal protection under the law. Get the white Episcopalian guy. Forget the gay, forget the Jew. Less punishment if you get caught. (Yes, equal protection applies to the perpetrator as well.)
“I rest my case. Same crime, but if committed against a protected class, a different sentence is meted out.”
It depends how the laws are written. Everyone has a sexual orientation, so if the law is written such that _any_ crime motivated by the other person’s perceived orientation is a hate crime, then it doesn’t create a protected class.
Similarly, if the law applies not just to religious beliefs but to perceived lack of religious beliefs, it can protect everyone.
(I haven’t read the text of the proposed Pennsylvania law; I just thought I’d throw that out there.)
I think the header of this blog post, if interpreted as it seems to be intended, relies on a false dichotomy. “Pro-life” in this country is usually taken to mean “Supportive of restricting or banning abortions.” “Pro-homosexual” can be taken to mean “supportive of rights for gays.” There’s no reason a candidate can’t be pro-life and also pro-homosexual.
Yes, in which case a “hate crimes” law becomes superfluous since a person would be tried for his crime, not his prejudice. Apply the law equally to all persons — victim and perpetrator alike.
Fr. Hans writes: “Yes, in which case a “hate crimes” law becomes superfluous since a person would be tried for his crime, not his prejudice. Apply the law equally to all persons — victim and perpetrator alike.”
Hate crime laws are applied to all people equally. You seem to be arguing that motive and intent cannot be taken into account in the punishment of the crime. My argument is that motive and intent are legitimate factors in determining punishment.
Here’s a very clear example of what I’m talking about:
Situation 1: with the intention of terrorizing Jews and hopepfully driving them out, a fellow spray paints swastikas on all five synagogues in his town.
Situation 2: in order to have some fun, a fellow spray paints graffiti on five random buildings in his town.
Let’s say that in both cases the same color and quantity of paint in used, and that the economic damage is the same in both cases.
Would you actually argue that the first crime should be punished the same as the second?
This is a crime against property, not a person. Nevertheless, if you want to make a distinction between the synogogue and, say, an empty warehouse in a light industrial park, make sure the law protecting the synogogue protects all houses of worship. From the other angle, punishment for vandalizing a synogogue should be no different than vandalizing a Baptist church.
Hate crimes are meant to punish politically incorrect thoughts. Let us be clear: The additional punishment given to the hate criminal is not a punishment for the physical criminal act (premeditated murder, vandalism, etc.). It is an incremental punishment for the prejudice against or disapproval of the demographic characteristic of the victim that led to the physical act against the victim.
If disapproval of homosexuality, for example, should be punished in the case in which it is associated with a murder, this implies that disapproval of homosexuality is a moral wrong that deserves punishment, and because of this implication there is no rational reason that disapproval of homosexuality should not be punished in general.
This is why “hate crime” statutes are disturbing to many Christians who believe the traditional doctrines concerning homosexuality. The disapproval of homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment in one instance (physical attacks), and it is likely that those who want it punished in one instance will eventually advocate that it be punished in other instances (probably speech first, and eventually failure to confirm acceptance of homosexuality in school exams – something that was proposed once in the CA state assembly). To lack concern about this slippery slope would be naive.
Note 37. Yes. And what “hate crimes” proponents don’t understand is that the victim du jour will shift with the tides of cultural opinion. Today’s bigot can become tomorrow’s hero. That is why equitable justice must be defended.
David George writes: “It is an incremental punishment for the prejudice against or disapproval of the demographic characteristic of the victim that led to the physical act against the victim.”
Hate crimes are typically committed by aggressive young males who desire to attack someone who is perceived as an outsider, thereby sending a “message” to other members of the despised group. Often such attacks involve a level of violence that exceeds ordinary assaults or murders. Hate crimes are often used to send a message to the larger group that the perceived outsiders are “not welcome.” In that sense the crime functions not just as a crime against a single person or family, but as a crime against the community.
David George: “If disapproval of homosexuality, for example, should be punished in the case in which it is associated with a murder, this implies that disapproval of homosexuality is a moral wrong that deserves punishment, and because of this implication there is no rational reason that disapproval of homosexuality should not be punished in general.”
It is interesting to me that the opponents of hate crime laws so frequently use homosexuality as the example. The conclusion that you reach, that the mere fact of disapproval of homosexuality could eventually be punished, is never suggested in the case of religion. For example, no one suggests that hate crimes laws involving religion would eventually lead to a situation in which religion could not be criticized. In fact, religious people themselves have traditionally been the the primary critics of other religious people.
David George: “This is why “hate crime” statutes are disturbing to many Christians who believe the traditional doctrines concerning homosexuality.”
What I don’t understand is the great focus on homosexuality. I don’t find anything in the New Testament that says that Christians are supposed to protest anything. I don’t see them marching in the streets protesting against divorce; in fact, in most Christian groups people divorce at rates equal to or higher than the rest of the population. I don’t see Christians protesting cohabiting couples. They don’t protest against materialism and greed. The ones in the right wing don’t protest against militarism; in fact many of them are the biggest supporters of warfare. There are all sorts of sins around, but for reasons that are not clear to me the homosexuals end up taking the brunt of the criticism.
Note 37. While I personally think some hate crime statutes serve a societal purpose, I can see the arguments against them. If you’re being logically consistent, you must feel the same way about the rights of anti-semites as you do the rights of Christians.
Which is fine; I would oppose most attempts to limit anti-semitic speech just as much as an attempt to limit anti-Christian speech or anti-homosexual speech. I suspect that you would as well, but in limiting your hypothetical examples to anti-gay bias you run the risk of being misinterpreted as someone who thinks that murdering a gay person is more justified than murdering someone else.
“but in limiting your hypothetical examples to anti-gay bias you run the risk of being misinterpreted as someone who thinks that murdering a gay person is more justified than murdering someone else.”
Now, why is that? Not to disagree, at least in general political discourse away from this board (where we know this is not the case). Why is it that when simply debating the issue at hand a group of people would actually accuse you of this particular thought crime (i.e. thinking murdering a gay person is ‘more justified’)? It has something to do with the moral posturing and the replacement of reason with sentiment fer sur, but there is something else to it. It is something to do with the very why a leftist thinks about “crime” and “hate” that is out of kilter…
Phil writes: ” . . . in limiting your hypothetical examples to anti-gay bias you run the risk of being misinterpreted . . .”
Well, read the original article again. The original article is about homosexuality:
“Adding sexual orientation verbage to hate-crime legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of all Americans who oppose homosexuality.” Casey’s support of including sexual orientation in hate crime law is interpreted as being anti-family and anti-catholic. He is compared negatively with Sen. Santorum, who opposed including sexual orientation in hate crimes law. There is nothing in the article that opposes hate crimes laws in general. It is only the inclusion of sexual orientation that is opposed.
There’s a reason why the examples almost always involve homosexuality, and the reason is that this is ABOUT homosexuality. It’s about the concerns of right-wing Christians that these laws will diminish their ability to denounce homosexuality. Lofty constitutional principles may be invoked. The founding fathers may be enlisted in support of the cause. But at the end of the day it’s all about being about to denounce homosexuals.
I think the implication here is not that homosexuals should be assaulted or murdered, but that they, unlike other groups, are worthy of contempt or hatred, and that it is therefore wrong to punish that hatred as an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime. In other words, someone who assaults or murders a homosexual merely in virtue of that person’s sexual orientation has the right feelings about homosexuals, but is expressing those feelings in an inappropriate way.
Note42.
How so? Right now no real hate crimes exist of the kind that Kennedy and crew want to see passed, but I don’t hear that much denounciation going on. In fact, I hear more denunciation of Christians than I do homosexuals, but I wouldn’t support hate crimes legislation against Christians either.
Hate crimes legislation is “ABOUT” homosexuality in that it seeks the legal codification of politically correct thinking regarding homosexuality. Homosexuals as class (if we can call homosexuals a class) is one of the most economically advantaged classes around (no kids to take care of). Why do they need status as a victim class when all who suffer at the hands of criminals are equally victims?
Again, want to help homosexuals? Work on gay on gay crime. More homosexuals suffer at the hands of other homosexuals than they do anti-homosexual bigots by a large margin.
Those with the most wealth have more to gain by social engineering! The gay lifstyle was thrown upon the U.S. population first in the 6O’s rock revolution(Name a british rock star who’s not gay!) and then again in 1980 with the upstart up of MTV(all the first music vidio’s were again gay british rock stars) Hence the gay 8o’s. Those with the “money” have everything to gain by dismantling the family unit and make every citizen singularly autonimous. No morals, no positive influence, commercially raised to be a compulsive consumer. Just look at the $80 billion internet porn industry. Porn is now an addiction with a 12 step recovery program! Money is the root of all kinds of evil and weaknesses with be exploited to make more money. If you put a frog in boiling water he jumps out. We are being slowly warmed up to immoral practices(feeding our compulsive weaknesses) forced upon us by those who prosper from them!
The example I employed in Post 37 focused on disapproval of homosexuality as opposed to racist thinking or prejudice against another religious group. First, I had to focus on something. I didn’t want to use two or three different examples. Second, I figured I would focus on something (disapproval of homosexuality) that some people believe is always associated by hate but that other people believe might be a result of irrational hatred, or a result of tutelage, or a result of correct moral reasoning. The latter two reasons for the development of a disapproval of homosexuality have nothing to do with hate in my opinion. I doubt many people who post to this blog hate homosexuals, but many of them disapprove of homosexual behavior. Perhaps this explanation will at least partially satisfy the remarks of Post 39.
As for Post 40, I appreciate Phil’s concern for how readers perceive me, but I think even a casual reading of Post 37 would not lead a reasonable person to think that I believe murdering homosexuals is more justified than murdering someone else. Admittedly, I realize those who irrationally equate disapproval of homosexuality with hate, much less those who equate the defense of the right to free thought concerning the morality of homosexual behavior to hate, will be inclined to misread me regardless of how many qualifications and various examples I might include in my statements.
Post 42: “I think the implication here is not that homosexuals should be assaulted or murdered, but that they, unlike other groups, are worthy of contempt or hatred, and that it is therefore wrong to punish that hatred as an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime.”
I strongly disagree that this is the implication of the article. I don’t think the author of the article is saying that homosexuals are worthy of contempt or hatred. If anything, I think the article conveys concern, citing an instance of the removal of the right to express disapproval of homosexuality in public, that hate crime statutes will eventually be used to punish not only hatred of homosexuals, but also disapproval of homosexuality.
The above being said, my original point stands. Hate crime statutes mete out incremental punishment for a person’s thoughts, not a person’s physical actions. This means that under the law, certain lines of reasoning (or hatred) are punishable under certain circumstances by imprisonment. This is the salient point, and I have yet to see any thoughts addressing it. Is it prudential for governments to legislate what people are and are not allowed to think? I indicated a few reasons why it is not prudential in Post 37. If we value freedom of speech, should we not place even greater value on freedom of thought and belief? I cannot think of one good reason to legislate the realm of thoughts in any instance, and many reasons not to do so.
Kristopher notes: “Money is the root of all kinds of evil and weaknesses with be exploited to make more money”
Yes, indeed. Someone should inform these folks, not to mention evangelist Rod Parsley who lives in a very swank home (he bought one for his parents, too) using the money he made hawking his “gospel”. Now that you mention it, Pat Robertson seems to also have his own love affair with all things that sparkle. I’m not sure, but I’m willing to bet that our “Godly” Republican Congressional leaders generally have seven-figure portfolios (if not eight, and in some cases, nine).
Wealth does not indicate a lack of virtue. In fact, haven’t we heard in this venue at least 1,000 times that poverty usually indicates sloth?
Once again, it just shows that such crass generalizations as the ones you made are frequently inaccurate and useless. The adage you used is most frequently used by those who HAVE and are afraid of others taking it, or they have NOT and envy those who do.
Money is neither good nor evil. There are decent folks with it and decent ones without it. I realize it’s simpler to think otherwise, but those are the facts.
David George writes: “If anything, I think the article conveys concern, citing an instance of the removal of the right to express disapproval of homosexuality in public, that hate crime statutes will eventually be used to punish not only hatred of homosexuals, but also disapproval of homosexuality. ”
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, to be guilty of a hate crime, one must commit a crime. No crime, no hate crime. Given that there is freedom of speech in the U.S., it is difficult to understand how a hate crime statute could morph into a statute in which mere disapproval would itself be a crime. With any statute one can make a slippery slope argument, but those arguments only make sense when there is a compelling reason to believe that the slippery slope would actually occur; the mere possibility of the slippery slope is certainly not compelling reason.
Second, I think you drastically underestimate the rationale behind such crimes. Hate crimes are typically designed not to be a crime against a single person but are designed to “send a message” to a larger community. For example, in the late 80s an Ethiopian man was murdered in Portland, Oregon by members of the White Aryan Resistance (WAR). The actions of the WAR members were encouraged by a white supremacist organization located in California. The purpose of the murder was not to kill a single person, but to provide WAR with notariety, “street cred,” and more adherents, and to send a message of white supremacy. In effect, it was a terrorist crime committed against the black community not just in Portland, but in all areas of the country in which white supremacist organizations operated. The crime was offered as an example to white supremacists around the U.S. as to the kind of action that was possible and appropriate.
Although a hate crime statute did not exist at that time, surely the larger community is justified in assigning a harsher punishment. To say that the perpetrators and encouragers of the crime merely “disapproved” of blacks is ridiculous.
David George: “Hate crime statutes mete out incremental punishment for a person’s thoughts, not a person’s physical actions.”
Not just thoughts, but intentions. The thinking behind hate crime statutes is the same kind of thinking behind domestic terrorism law. For example, U.S. domestic terrorism law in part defines terrorist acts as those that ”
In other words, your argument against hate crime law would work equally as well as an argument against domestic terrorism law. After all domestic terrorists are showing their disapproval of the U.S. government. If we have domestic terrorism laws, eventually we could end up with laws that prohibit thought or speech opposing the government. I don’t think that’s an argument you would want to make.
“Again, want to help homosexuals? Work on gay on gay crime. More homosexuals suffer at the hands of other homosexuals than they do anti-homosexual bigots by a large margin.”
I can think of several high-profile examples, but I’m curious if you can point me toward a source for that statistic.
http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence/index.html
Note 49: I’m not sure what these statistics are to mean, given that “nearly 2 in 3 female victims of violence were related to or knew their attacker. (Ronet Bachman Ph.D., U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report,” January 1994, p. iii)
Over two-thirds of violent victimizations against women were committed by someone known to them: 31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger. Approximately 28% were intimates such as husbands or boyfriends, 35% were acquaintances, and the remaining 5% were other relatives.”
Doesn’t it stand to reason that many, if not most, victims of assault know their attackers? I’m not sure how this indicates that other types of assault do not exist or that the motivations behind such attacks do not differ widely.
So spousal battery (usually men against women) outnumbers battery against strangers. So what? I don’t think the law specifies the same penalties for domestic abuse as it does assault against someone unknown. The penalties may be harsher for the latter situation, while the former may demand some sort of mental health and/or marriage counseling. They’re not the same offenses.
Again (and I thought Jim made this point well), hate crimes laws should not care WHO is being attacked, they only look at factors surrounding the intent of the act that might indicate the person is a graver threat to a larger number of people. Thus, different recommendations for sentencing might be in order.