|
domiguy -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/4/2007 9:27:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zerosignal
Swing and a miss, my friend. First of all, you humorously equivocate on the forum we're in right now. No, this is not a courtroom. No, these would not be the arguments I would make in that setting. Were I making a purely legal argument against "hate crime" legislation, I would reference the long-established Equal Protection Jurisprudence in American law which unequivocally states, "The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal." That's Bakke v. Regents of the Univ. of California, by the way. I'd then follow up with a reference to City of Richmond v. J.A. Construction Co., which identified racial discrimination designed to benefit minorities as a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny. Since you insinuate that you're in the know, I guess I don't have to define strict scrutiny for you; I'm sure you can devise some clever red herring response, anyway. After that, I'd cite Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed. which required a particularized evidentiary showing to justify any racial differentials in affirmative action, and link it to "hate crimes" legislation by analogy, and then distinguish Grutter v. Bollinger by referencing the government's burden to justify racial differentials in each individual case and not pursuant to any blanket policy. And once I was done with that, I'd quote C.J. Roberts' recent opinion at the end of the most recent SCOTUS term, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I dare say that would probably be a bit more persuasive than some Belushi quote used in a sad attempt to come off as clever.
However, since we aren't in a courtroom, I was offering my personal experiences with the proponents of hate crimes legislation. You seem to demand more than that to meet your expectations of intellectual rigor, and I don't have a pop culture quote to respond to yours with, so let me try the following instead.
You say that America is supposed to be tolerant; you provide rock solid support for this proposition by vaguely referencing a poem by Emma Lazarus. The problem with that premise, and what follows it, is that there is a hierarchy of principles in American culture, and the Constitution sits at the very top of it (that's why they call it the Supreme Law of the Land; I know Article VI, Clause 2 is no Emma Lazarus poem, but let's at least compromise and call them roughly equally controlling doctrines of legal policy). Equality before the law is enshrined in the Constitution. An ideal regarding private human behavior, no matter how noble, desirable, or intuitive, is not. When a private individual selects a victim for a crime on the basis of race, that is immoral. When a governmental body institutionalizes special protections in the law for one social group versus another, that is unconstitutional. The latter outcome is worse than the former.
Put another way, a series of individual discrete wrongs is not as bad as an official system of wrongs bearing the imprimatur of the state. If an attack on a black person by a white person, or an asian person by a black person, or a Jewish person by a Native American is truly so repellent, increase the penalties for one person attacking another person. Provide protection from violence to everyone, regardless of social group membership. To approach the problem any other way carries with it the undeniable implication that some social groups are "special" and deserve extra privileges. The American Constitution was written to avoid those things.
And that lesson, genius, is free of charge.
The problem with your argument as to...
quote:
zerosignal
long-established Equal Protection Jurisprudence in American law which unequivocally states, "The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal."
Is that the law is equally dispensed to all....It favors no group or color....A Chinese handicapped woman is just as capable of being charged with a hate crime as a well as an able bodied Lithuanian.
Hate laws are run by each state as they see fit, they are not a federal law.
So actually, although it was in gest....My arguing in front of a court some quip from a comedy might be just as solid as an argument as the one you have posed.
In comparison to the general amount of crime hate crimes make up a small amount...Perhaps this is why they need to be treated differently....As far as the FBI stats go we can debate all day whether they hold any relevance.....I see a difference in someone defiling a mosque in comparison to tearing up a lawn....You don't. You feel that without specific "Hate Laws" that the punishment for the crime is in place to deal with such individuals....I don't.
You think that hate laws were established because of white guilt and sheltered white liberals...I don't see it. I simply see it as being an extra bonus of time for acting like an asshole.
quote:
zerosignal
these white liberals put unwavering faith in simple concepts to avoid having to struggle with more complex realities. To wit, problems of socioeconomic disparity and historical (not present) institutionalized racism become a nebulous, indistinct conspiracy that lurks around every corner and must be stamped out at all costs.
I see white liberals are unable to grasp the complex realities of your statement....What does this statement have to do with hate crimes?
It is fine to not like the idea that people should be punished because they act on their hateful feelings towards a person or group that has caused them no harm....It is a legitimate argument.....blame all of the problems when it comes down to race as far as affirmative action or anti-hate laws on liberals shows a lack of clear thinking and judgement......Which by judging from this post would it be wrong to assume you would consider yourself a conservative? Since you didn't state it, but it does have relevance about how you could reach these conclusions.
Now your last statement
quote:
zerosignal
Seen from this perspective, I have to admit, I was wrong about one thing. It's perfectly reasonable to look at hate crime laws as thought policing. Congratulations, DG. The quality of your advocacy presented the most compelling argument against your position of all
This would insinuate that people are compelled not to commit a crime by the possible extended sentence. I'm not sure if this is true....Either way if the additional time is a deterrent for someone not to act on their hateful thoughts then I'm cool with it.
I dislike government encroaching into our lives...I have rather startled myself by taking up this position...I don't like the idea of the gov't encroaching into free speech...Which has been attempted to be included in some of the language that has been proposed in the anti-hate laws.
Hopefully there may come a time when these laws will not be be necessary....But they are here....And I think they serve a purpose...Which is the point of this forum....We do not have to agree.
.
|
|
|
|
