I find the whole concept of hate crimes to be disturbing. But the difficulty in attacking hate crime legislation on a free speech basis is that “speech” as it is traditionally known is not involved, and the expressive conduct of an assault is entirely unprotected as a matter of speech. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if this law ran into some trouble with the RAV holding (which makes it unconstitutional to proscribe only *some* unprotected speech– no “playing favorites” with protected classes), and I hope the Alito/Roberts/Scalia court will see it that way.

I also agree this is unnecessary. Judges have sentencing discretion in most cases, and can enhance the sentence if they feel the crime is a particularly egregious assault (ex. one done without remorse, or out of pure racial hatred). I can only hope, for now, that prosecutorial discretion holds back hate crime indictments. The problem is that, over time, communities will become aware of the hate crime legislation and clamor for it; most DA offices are very political and dedicated to being “tough on crime”… cue the hate crime bonanza!

And how on earth does voter fraud qualify as “bodily injury”? With firearms and incendiaries, no less. You seem to be buying the rightwing fruitcake explanation of the bill being about thought and speech. Read the bill. It’s about BODILY INJURY.

Tell me, has any of those phoney indictments stuck? You stop phoney indictments by stopping phoney indictments, not by encouraging hate crimes.

But even your example smacks of uncertainty as to whether this was “hate” or not. Targeting a certain demographic because the perps perceive that demographic as being an easy target does not, in and of itself, strike me as “hate,” per se. I know it may feel that way and certainly if the attack was accompanied by racial epithets, it will certainly feel that way. But is profiling a certain population as an easy target filled with hate or is it just thought to be easy money? I am not at all sure that is clear.

But the larger concern is that, given what we know about the Bush administration and its politicization of the Justice Department, I sure as hell don’t want such a compromised department deciding what people are thinking and being able to prosecute for that. They’ve already demonstrated that they will bring phony indictments for political expediency and I think a hate crime law would only give them more tools to do so. Phony voter fraud could be prosecuted with extra vigor because the DoJ could claim that the fraud was done with “hate” of the opposition.

I am not saying that such a law is not without good intentions. But the road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

I was once jumped by three black guys who hijacked the car I was driving and totaled it. The statement they made to the PROSECUTOR was that they went to my neighborhood because they wanted to commit a crime against a white woman, because white women were easy targets. Even though this was quite obviously–to me a least–a hate crime, and the perpetrators had rap sheets involving autos, they just got a slap on the wrist. When I went to move, guess what, a car full of black kids with caps (the direction of the bill of the cap indicated which gang they belonged to) was stalking me as I loaded stuff into the car. I guess the word was still out on the street that targeting white women in my racially mixed neighborhood was an easy game, and that the only risk in this type of personally dangerous assault based on racial profiling was in getting another car theft tick added to your rap sheet. BTW, that neighborhood has now “resegregated” and only blacks can and do live there.

Actually, when the Republicans suggested the addition of the elderly and police, Conyers said, ok, we’ll add them. The GOP then voted against the bill anyway.

Ambivalence abounds in discussions about hate crimes. Or at least it should. Far too many people think that “hate crime” is a clear cut issue when it is hardly the case. The difficulty comes in setting up conditions wherein the government — all branches — is compelled to know or to think it knows the thinking of a particular perpetrator. This is a slippery slope, people. I don’t want any government agency acting as though it knows the thinking any citizen. Law enforcement should be — must be — based on evidence. Once we move from laws based on factual evidence and start plunging the depths of psychology to in order to determine guilt or innocence, the potential for government perfidy becomes unbounded.

Yesterday, Lamar Smith (R-TX), moved to include this language in the bill — to protect the elderly and the military — and his request to recommit to committee was countered with an offer to immediately amend the language of the bill by unanimous consent.

He refused. He wanted to send the bill back to the committee, not actually protect the seniors and soldiers. His constituents should be made aware of such political stupidity. I’ve recorded the transcripts from the Congressional record, if anyone is interested in viewing it, HERE.

The way I’m reading it, the only time the law would come into force is if state or local law enforcement did not intend to prosecute a crime.

As far as the statement that the law “seem to permit federal hate crimes prosecutions for thinking something,”…no, I’m not buying the ‘thoughtcrime argument’. It’s pretty clear that this only applies when there is physical harm or an attempt to physical harm:

willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,

Section 6 is equally clear that hate speech by itself is not covered here, it has to be along with the bodily injury:

a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct

So in other words, just killing a black person (or white person)isn’t a hate crime, they might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone flipped. But if someone says “nigger” or “honkey” or “faggot” then kills someone, this would speak to the motive of the killer.

Adding police or soldiers to the bill?..hmmm, I think those are occupations rather than classifications of people. Age bias is harder to classify. I once was in a theater when a trailer for a comedy was shown of an elderly person with a walker being harmed in a horrible fashion while the crowd laughed hysterically. Made me uncomfortable to be in the same room with those people, but limiting age discrimination has not enjoyed the same success in the courts as other kinds of discrimination. The bill is probably a reflection of current social perceptions as well as the frequency of certain types of hate crimes.

Some churches are telling people they could be prosecuted under this law just for reading the Bible in church. No, no, and no. That is a lie. Others are saying is is an attempt to erode religion. Heaven forbid murder should be illegal, then later someone might attempt to stop hate speech…the Prince of Peace could be out of business in no time!

John’s “private prosecution” theory is a red herring. The people who can afford lawyers are not the disenfranchised who are likely to be targeted by hate groups. Hate crime needs to be a crime against the state, not just a crime when it is against someone who can afford to have the law enforced.

Personally, though, I think there are better ways to solve this problem. We could allow any citizen to call for a federal investigation of any violent crime; or we could allow citizens to bring private prosecutions, as was done in England prior to the late 19th century. Either of those would solve the problem of prosecutorial discrimination, without creating special classes of protected people.