House Bill 1459
The Indiana House of Representatives is considering a bill that would essentially give additional punishment to individuals creating crimes if they were deemed to be targeted at individuals because of the victim's color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex needs to hear from you today.
It is essentially a Hate Crime Bill like other states have instituted. With the recent Imus controversy and the crazy stuff that Rosie says on TV, this becomes an important issue.
So the fairness issue is raised because if a man mugs a guy because he is gay or dresses strangely, he may face additional.
Are the aggravating circumstances listed in this bill House Bill 1459 enough to justify additional punishment? I have no problems with the additional punishment for aggravating circumstances as long as it is applied fairly towards everyone.
It seems that judges already have some latitude in adjusting sentences and this may be redundant legal language in an attempt to promote a more liberal agenda or groundwork to get Hate Speech laws passed as in Canada.
Passing laws against certain speech would be detrimental to our society.
Labels: hate crime, liberal agenda
posted by Anonymous at 6:16 AM
18 Comments:
It seems that judges already have some latitude in adjusting sentences and this may be redundant legal language in an attempt to promote a more liberal agenda or groundwork to get Hate Speech laws passed as in Canada.Passing laws against certain speech would be detrimental to our society.
Leaping merrily along from one issue to another, not necessarily linked ... but where would we be without the dreaded (cue the voice of doom) "liberal agenda"?
What about people that are SHORT - would they be protectd? Or CEO's, is that protected?
New Albanian,
You are quite perceptive in catching HB's lack of connection between ideas. But in any event, the reason that judges have that latitude is because the legislature has given it to them (or allowed them to retain in, in some instances). Imposing sentences is a prime example. The legislature tells judges the boundaries. Judges must decide each case on its own merits and impose a sentence within those boundaries. In this case, the legislature is further defining the boundaries in which judges operate.
Personally, I don't see any social value in hate speech. I'm glad the legislature is acting to make punishments more strict for those who engage in such behavior.
HB, if it's not the role of the legislature to define what constitutes a crime and the appropriate punishment, what is their role?
The problem is that the crime is already defined.
If a hispanic man mugs an elderly 80 y.o. white lady and gets 2 years but another hispanic mugs a younger black man and gets 5 years because it was considered a "hate crime", is that fair.
What crime committed doesn't have some degree of hate or mal-intent involved?
How many crimes are committed out of love, friendship, kindness, etc.
All crimes are wrong and implementing special punishments for political purposes is a bad precendent.
Anon 8:25, do you want to be friends with me? Post once for yes, twice for no.
Um, wouldn't we call it a "hippie" or "socialist" agenda rather than a "liberal" agenda? Granted, liberals are what we get when hippies and socialists have babies...but, fundamentally, liberalism concerns itself more with growing the boundaries of what is socially acceptable rather than shrinking them. I don't see how censorship fits in. Besides, if politicians pass laws against hate speech, whom does that leave to run the government?
I also don't see how the proposed changes could/would be uniformly enforced. What if a fat, black, crippled, lesbian midget gets into a bar fight with an elderly, left-handed, ugly Canadian Mormon? Who goes to jail then?
I can't keep up. Either minorities want to be treated with equality or they don't. What does that term even mean anymore, anyway? Minority. Find me one person who doesn't have some physical, mental, or lifestyle-related attribute that doesn't qualify him or her as a "minority" in some way.
I swear, you can't swing a dead cat these days without hurting someone's feelings.
Anon 3:51,
HOW DARE YOU ABUSE A DEAD CAT!
HB, this is anon 8:44 again...
I see your point, but the problem is that there are some instances where the crime is aggravated by a racial or other component that makes it more serious. This allows judges the leeway to impose harsher sentences where that is a factor.
If the man in your example committed the same crime against an elderly white woman and a younger black male, the only difference being the crime against the younger black male was motivated by racial prejudice, I would support a harsher sentence for that instance. That is because our society should say unequivocally that any crime motivated by racial or other prejudices is more serious than one that is not.
The legislature has determined that the current statute does not go far enough. Therefore, the proposed change. This is a perfect example of the conservative philosophy in action. Rather than judges deciding to impose the harsher sentences for hate crimes, the legislature is enacting the statute. This is not a case of judicial activism, so the only recourse for conservatives now is to argue that hate crimes should not be punished any differently than a crime in which race is not a factor. In other words, the problems conservatives often have with the procedure is not an issue here. The only issue that you seem to have is with the substance of the law. I think that is a very dangerous road on which you are embarking.
As for your question regarding how many crimes are motivated by love, surely you are not serious. If a father has no money with which to buy food for his children and commits a theft in order to be able to put food on the table, that is certainly a crime motivated by love.
A man is rushing to get his pregnant wife to the hospital, and in the urgency of the moment runs a red light and crashes into another vehicle, killing a child in the other car. A crime of hate? I doubt it. But a crime, nonetheless.
The examples could be endless, but suffice it to say that there are crimes that are labelled as such simply because the statute says so--not because of any ill will or hate.
Such is the nature of our criminal code. And that code is defined by the legislature, whose authority to enact laws defining crimes (as narrowly or broadly as they see fit) comes from the state's constitution and inherent powers.
As far as the political process is implicated, of course politics plays a role. That is why you vote for the candidate you think will best represent your interests. The democractic process inherently involves politics, and since the criminal code is written by the legislature, that political nature carries over into the writing of laws. That is the essence of politics in America, and is a beautiful snapshot of a representative government.
I am a conservative. I support the legislature acting in accord with the will of the people, rather than judges usurping the role of the legislature. In this instance, that process is acting just as it should. And I agree with the intent of the legislature to label hate crimes as being more serious than others.
I see your viewpoint as well, but breaking the law is just that; "breaking the law".
You cannot prove intent or motive other than inferring it from their actions.
Even the examples you provide have some mal-intent involved because the person is actively choosing to break a known law. You don't necessarily believe the means justify the end do you?
The border patrol guards recently got in trouble because they wounded a drug trafficker by going out of the legal system. Their intent might have been good, but they still chose to break the law they were supposedly trying to uphold.
Changes like these becomes much too subjective which in turn leads to the potential for much more abuse.
HB,
I know you are busy. We all are. We all sometimes write things that are not quite as coherent as we would like. But..
Have you really read your stuff lately? Not too long ago, you were writing about a television show and the dreaded liberal agenda. I asked you some questions then and no answer. Now you are writing about hate CRIMES and somehow make the leap to Hate Speech and censorship.
I may not be able to follow your wife's writing because I have little background in most of her subjects but in this area, I do have background and you are not making any sense. If you would have quit after "... adjusting sentences" you would have been at least on point. And basically, I would have agreed with you.
Anon 8:44 here again...
HB, you wrote:
"You cannot prove intent or motive other than inferring it from their actions."
Yes. But how does that help your argument? Intent is rarely proven from direct evidence. A prosecutor will tell you that a majority of evidence involves inferences. Certainly all 3rd person testimony involves inferences.
Your example of the border patrol guards could be added to my 2 previous examples. Again, I don't see how that advances your argument.
We are not punishing someone because they have a specific intent to break the law. Rather, we are punishing them because they intend to do the act that the law defines as criminal. That doesn't mean that the act was motivated by hate or "mal-intent," it just means that the statute says the act is punishable by criminal sanctions.
Much of our criminal law involves subjective tests for determining whether an actor committed a criminal offense. Whether the act was done can be determined by looking at objective actions. Whether the necessary intent was present, however, often involves a subjective look into what was in the mind of this particular defendant.
It is not correct to say that breaking the law is per se the result of "mal-intent."
Nor is it correct to say that actions stemming from "mal-intent" are per se criminal.
This conversation could go on forever. But if you want to say that subjective states of mind should not be relevant in determining whether someone broke the law, I have to disagree.
To that end, again, it is up to the legislature to define what is punishable under the criminal code, and what is not. Cheating on a test at school is wrong, but not criminal. It could be--but the legislature has not said it is.
In this case, the legislature wants to say that hate crimes are punishable by harsher sanctions. And I support that.
I think you are getting a little off track in an effort to find some footing for your argument against the substance of the legislation. To follow through with your argument, you should be explaining why hate crimes should not be punished differently than other crimes. I haven't seen anything that supports that view. And I have a feeling that you probably didn't intend to say that in those words, although it is the necessary conclusion to your original post.
A judge already has the ability to exercise his/her discretion in imposing sentences. What is any different from allowing the judge to include the fact that the crime was motivated by hate? How is that different from any other mitigating or aggravating circumstance?
As far as the potential for abuse, that is why we have an appeals process.
HB, I believe you have just been OWNED... anonymous 5:40, thank you
Again, the problem is exactly as you state.
"What is any different from allowing the judge to include the fact that the crime was motivated by hate?"
The question remains, How do you prove it is motivated by hate?
Speaking loudly against homosexuals, blacks, mexicans, womem etc and then commiting a crime; Is this now a hate crime because they used their free speech to voice their beliefs.
Where do you draw the line.
Canada's is the example of the extreme, but once you allow this, you open the door to these subjective punishments.
iamhoosier,
Not trying to ignore your questions but just really busy.
Why is it a leep to go from labeling certain crimes as "hate crimes" to talking about hate speech. Look at Canada. It is exactly what they have done.
If it weren't for speech and actions, how can you possibly label something a "hate crime". Speech is why most people believe something is done out of hate. It is because they have verbalized it prior to the action.
They follow directly.
Yep, just one more reason why Canada is stupid.
It's one heck of a slippery slope though, doc.
(anon 8:44 again...)
HB,
It's not the speech itself that should be a crime, whether racially motivated or not. Don Imus won't likely be criminally prosecuted simply because of what he said.
But when a crime is motivated by hatred that is based on a prejudice, that is a hate crime. It's not just that a white man assaults a black man. It's that the assault itself stems from a racial motive.
Assault = Punishment A.
Assault + Racial/other hateful motivation = harsher punishment.
You have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean the same hate that motivates that speech can motivate an assault and not face harsher punishments. The right to free speech that allows you to voice a racial or other prejudice does not give you a right to assault someone because of the same prejudice.
From one point of view, an assault is not the same crime as a racially motivated assault. This law would recognize the distinction.
As for your question posed to iamhoosier, speech is not the only way to find intent. In the eyes of the law, intent can be inferred from circumstances.
You don't have to yell "I hate homosexuals" at the same time you take a swing at a gay person in order to find a hate crime.
So back to the bar fight scenario... let's say that the Canadian really hates crippled lesbians, and the midget especially hates ugly left-handed Mormons. Otherwise, they could have been great friends. Would they both get harsher punishments? Or do they cancel each other out...
And what would happen to those of us who have a specific problem with stupid people? What if I lose myself one day and punch a stupid person in the face? Yes, I may be prejudiced against them, but is it a hate crime? It could happen...
What I want to know is whether it will be considered a hate crime if a black person kills a white person? Racism knows no certain color or race as far as I have been able to see in my life. By the way if the worst thing these young ladies from Rutgers are ever called are "nappy headed ho's" in their life they are truly one lucky group of individuals.
Post a Comment
<< Home