November 18, 2009 News+Opinion » Guest Columnist

New law lets you think what you want 

Hate on Me, Hater

by Greg Hambrick
greghambrick.jpg

Latest in Guest Columnist

"Thought crimes" is a clever, easy-to-swallow slogan, but trying to suggest that newly expanded hate crime laws will put your bias on trial is foolish and reveals an ignorance to the very real violence targeted at minorities, including the disabled and gays.

In his spirited defense of dirty minds, Sen. Jim DeMint stood on the Senate floor and offered a list of irrational pleas to prevent the hate crimes measure from passing. The best of these was that it was tied to an unrelated Defense Department funding bill, which is regrettable, but that fact alone didn't compel DeMint to vote for it.

His worst argument was that this new law would somehow protect pedophiles who claimed they were being discriminated against due to a disability. I have faith that the criminal justice system will not stand for such an abuse of the law.

DeMint also said the new hate crimes law would prosecute thoughts.

"If we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes," he said.

You're not going to be prosecuted for your beliefs or your thoughts. DeMint has expressed his own thoughts on gays — unapologetically saying during his first run for Senate in 2004 that gays shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. And he's free to continue believing that.

You can hate gays with a vehement passion. Crush Tim Gunn's head between your fingers when you see him on television. Scrawl "fag" all over the wall on your Facebook page. Break Clay Aiken albums over your head. Send big fat checks in support of anti-gay referendums in battleground states. It's all legal.

What you can't do is take that hate and translate it into violence. Hate crime laws weren't created to protect black people from racial slurs; they were created to protect blacks from people carrying nooses.

Some opponents argue that this makes it worse if you beat up a gay guy than if you beat up a straight guy. A straight white guy should have the same protection under this law as anybody else. Let's just hope that the small sect of puritanical gays hiding in their nicely-decorated caves don't launch their plot for a fashionable worldwide cleansing.

In truth, the sexuality, race, or gender of the victim makes no difference in these cases. A hate crime is all about the suspect. Like most any violent crime, it's the motive that matters. A crime of passion is weighed differently than a carefully planned murder. In other cases, circumstances like whether you were defending yourself or if it was a simple accident can make a difference.

The new law will deter potential crimes, and it will allow federal intervention when investigating cases, but the sentencing is up to the courts. And it's understandably difficult to prosecute these cases because, ironically, we don't know what the suspect is thinking. The proof usually had to come from the smoking gun of a legible manifesto or an admissible confession. And it's up to the judge or the jury to weigh the evidence and determine what is and isn't a hate crime.

As for the suggestion that this is a "special" right, that's kind of like saying boiled peanuts have special rights as the state peanut. The peanut bill, hardly given a second thought by most legislators, says that we like our boiled peanuts. Well, the hate crimes bill says that we like our diversity and that we, as a society, will not allow our neighbors to be chased off or shot at like deer just because somebody has a chip on their shoulder fostered by religious zealotry or some genetically-ingrained need to eliminate the more evolved person next door.

The law won't stop all hate crimes, and it really won't stop backwards people from thinking what they want to think. After all, the Klan still comes out from under its rock about once a year to march on Columbia (and, it's important to note, they don't get arrested for it).

No, what stops hate crimes is a community that stands up and says, "No more." It's people who stand with the oppressed (be they white or black, gay or straight, men or women). The law only does so much. The heavy lifting is up to you.

Tags:

Comments (6) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 6

Add a comment | All comments »

Our government says the courts CAN DETERMINE whether someone who kills me did or didn't hate me. That's interpreting the law by the "I knows it when I sees it" methodology. Next thing ya know burning the flag will be a hate crime. Damn that pesky old First Amendment.

Posted by guy on November 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM | Report this comment

The hate crime law DID pass. It was signed into law on October 28, 2009. And I'm damned glad it did. What is not mentioned in this discussion is the reason why the bill was introduced. True hate crime targets more than a single individual. It is meant to terrorize an entire community. It is particularly heinous for this reason, and deserves special legislation. The bill does not punish "thought crime." What it does punish is the intent of the criminal. This logic has been used for years by criminal courts, ergo first, second and third degree assault and murder charges. Also, because the vast majority of hate crimes occur in minority communities, local law enforcement agencies are often lax or unwilling to properly address them.

Posted by Brad Bailey on November 22, 2009 at 10:04 AM | Report this comment

I am glad the hate law did not pass. We can charge people for crimes as we always have. People are always prejudice and racist throughout life. A crime is a crime. Assault is a crime. If somebody assaults somebody because they are gay, they are charged with assault. We do not need hate crime legislation. The already charges people with crimes if the commit crime upon another person. This new law would give too much power to the State and government. This new law would get carried away and not really protect anybody. It is unnessary.

Posted by riptide on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM | Report this comment

First of all, I'm not a lawyer so my reasoning on this could be completely misinformed. But couldn't hate crime legislation potentially lead to an abuse of one's constitutional rights by allowing prosecutors to get around double-jeopardy?

Scenario: A man is tried for murder. The victim is of a different race/religion/sexual orientation. He is tried by his state of residence for murder and acquitted. Then the federal government looks at the case, decides that the murder was motivated by hate, classifies it as a "hate crime" and then tries the suspect in federal court.

Double jeopardy? Most people would think so. But would an overzealous prosecutor? What would a federal judge say? Could it depend on the political leanings of the judge?

So let's say the defendant appeals and the federal judge rules that while he cannot be tried again for murder, he could be tried for hate. You have no act of violence on which to hang a "hate crimes" charge because the defendant has already been acquitted of murder.

So does the federal government have the right to try the suspect for murder (as a "hate" crime) since he wasn't tried for a "hate" crime before?

Posted by Jason Usry on November 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM | Report this comment

Reread the piece, samdu. Two crimes are ALWAYS treated differently.

Posted by Greg Hambrick on November 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Classified Listings
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2010, Charleston City Paper   RSS