Hate Crimes Hatin'

by publius

Oh Richard Cohen -- why must you torment me so? 

Today's new torment is a column devoted to denouncing hate crimes.  I guess there's nothing much going on in DC these days.  Anyway, here's the thrust of it:

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech.

Two points here. 

First, the "real purpose."  Cohen says that hate crimes aren't really different from any other crime -- so there's no need for extra penalties.  That's not true.  Hate crimes are specifically intended not merely to injure the individual, but to politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights. 

Hate crimes, in short, are politics by extralegal means.  Lynching in the South, for instance, wasn't just a crime against an individual -- it was a signal to the larger community.  And so because hate crimes have additional consequences above and beyond the individual injury, they are more harshly punished.  That's the "real purpose."

Second, there's the whole "criminalizing thought" canard.  I really get tired of this one. 

In one sense, all crimes criminalize "thought."  The American criminal justice system requires showing not merely an act, but an intent.  If I fall down accidentally and kill you, I can't be prosecuted.  Yes, I committed an act of homicide, but I didn't intend to do that act. 

And there are better examples.  Think about the crime of assault with intent to murder.  To convict, it's not enough to show that an assault occurred.  The prosecution must also show that a defendant specifically intended to kill the victim.  In this sense, the prosecution must establish what the defendant was thinking at the time.

But here's the catch -- we don't prosecute people because of "thoughts," we infer thoughts from concrete actions.  If I hit you in the face in a bar and you die (stop laughing -- it's possible), I probably can't be charged with murder.  That's because there was no evidence that I intended to kill you when I hit you. 

But... let's pretend that I knew you had a brain clot or something.  And let's pretend that, right before I hit you, I yelled, "I'm going to bust that clot which I fervently hope will kill you!"  In that case, you can infer my intent (my thoughts) from tangible evidence.  It happens every day in courtrooms across the country. 

Hate crimes work the same way.  There has to be some tangible evidence that the defendant acted because of bias.  We're not criminalizing thoughts or opinions.  We inferring a specific type of criminal intent from tangible evidence -- just like we must infer intent to murder from tangible evidence.  There has to be something more than the act itself.

That said, maybe people will get charged with these crimes who shouldn't.  And maybe some laws could be drafted better.  But that's true of a lot of crimes.  And these concerns don't justify dismissing the entire category of hate crimes.

Comments

[jrudkis]

Hate crime enhancement makes the most sense for crimes like vandalism or trespassing where society does not reasonably want to have huge penalties for a kid breaking a neighbor's window with a stone on a dare, but does want to have larger penalties for that same window being broken as an act of intimidation to make a black family move out. Similarly spraying the name of your favorite rockband on your neighbor's van should be prosecuted, but spraying "kill Jews" on the same van should have a greater penalty, even though the defacement would cost the same in dollars to repair. These acts have the same dollar value but their impact are vastly different, and therefore reasonable to treat differently.

I think it is a harder sale when it comes to violent crime: the murder victim is just as dead. If the purpose is to punish for the further intimidation of the larger targeted group, then I think that should be an additional charge: intimidation, or terrorism. While I agree that intent is almost always a criminal requirement, the criminal intent in hate crimes is toward a different set of victims than the dead ones.

[Sebastian]

I agree with jrudkis, hate crime bills are most useful when they are directed as mild enhancements on normally trivial crimes. Putting it on a murder or beating just suggests to me that we aren't punishing the underlying crimes harshly enough. Most beatings are already hate crimes--yelling "Fag" isn't better or worse.

[Derek]

It's no different than anti terrorism laws.

The biggest selling point for me is the fact that it gives the federal government jurisdiction in cases where you might not expect the state/local authorities to give the victim the treatment they'd afford other people.

[Brandon Berg]

The other examples you give are about punishing actions more or less harshly based on the intent. That is, did he intend to kill the person, or was it an accident? The reason for this should be fairly obvious: It doesn't make sense to punish people for accidents, except those resulting from gross negligence or felonious (but not murderous) intent.

But hate crimes aren't about punishing based on intent, they're about punishing based on motivation. The question isn't whether the person intended to commit the crime, but why.

Now, I guess you can argue that motivation is an aspect of intent. His intent was to beat up the victim, and in doing so convey the message that Those People weren't welcome in his neighborhood.

But if you want to make that argument, then it becomes clear that you are in fact punishing speech. And I'm not sure there's a problem with that. If a guy gets up on a soapbox and threatens to beat up one of Those People per day until they leave town, is it reasonable to punish him? Yeah, probably.

My primary concern is that hate crime legislation will be used to punish what should be protected speech. For example, a black guy and a white guy get into a fight. Racial slurs are exchanged in both directions, out of anger rather than out of an intent to intimidate members of each other's races generally.

In this situation, I suspect that there's a good chance that the white guy's going to end up facing hate crime charges, even though the argument above really doesn't apply. The black guy, maybe, but probably less likely, because everyone knows that hate crimes are something straight white males do to minorities.

Granted, well-crafted hate-crime legislation could avoid this problem. But well-crafted legislation is not something that can reasonably be expected from the democratic process.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hate crimes are specifically intended not merely to injure the individual, but to politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights."

I suppose that's the case in some hate crimes, perhaps burning a cross on somebody's front lawn, but I rather doubt it's the case in all of them. Are the people inclined to commit crimes really all that obsessed with politics? Or are hate crimes just the result of a person inclined to commit crimes against people he doesn't like being a bigot?

I have two objections to hate crime laws:

First, what you did is fairly objective. Motivation is not, often it's going to have to be inferred. There may be failures at this step, there may be deliberate failures at this step. I mean, we've had people willing to claim, here, that 'oppressed' minority group members can't be racists. I suppose that means that they can't commit hate crimes, either?

Second, like any law providing multiple potential charges at different levels of jurisdiction, for the same physical act, hate crime laws provide a way to circumvent the double jeopardy clause. That clause is practically dead at this point, but let's not put the final nail in the coffin.

[Gary Farber]

"It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech."

Killing is killing, after all: our law has always said that thought and motive are irrelevant. Back your car into someone by accident, or hate them for months because of the affair they've had with your spouse, and so you plan to run them over?

It's only a difference in what you think, and we never consider that in courts of law.

If we did, we'd be punishing thought! And intent! And motive!

Like we always have!

[Gary Farber]

"It happens every day in courtrooms across the country."

Exactly. As you say, the idea that thought is irrelevant to what crime is committed or prosecuted, is a total canard, is absolutely ahistoric, and is simply nonsense.

jrudkis: "Hate crime enhancement makes the most sense for crimes like vandalism or trespassing where society does not reasonably want to have huge penalties for a kid breaking a neighbor's window with a stone on a dare, but does want to have larger penalties for that same window being broken as an act of intimidation to make a black family move out. Similarly spraying the name of your favorite rockband on your neighbor's van should be prosecuted, but spraying "kill Jews" on the same van should have a greater penalty, even though the defacement would cost the same in dollars to repair. These acts have the same dollar value but their impact are vastly different, and therefore reasonable to treat differently."

Good points.

Brandon Berg: "But hate crimes aren't about punishing based on intent, they're about punishing based on motivation."

Yes, intent and motive are inextricable, if not identical.

"Now, I guess you can argue that motivation is an aspect of intent. His intent was to beat up the victim, and in doing so convey the message that Those People weren't welcome in his neighborhood.

But if you want to make that argument, then it becomes clear that you are in fact punishing speech."

No, you're punishing someone for beating someone else, and their intent in doing so. If all they did was make a speech, that's not against the law (if it isn't a direct incitement to riot).

[Gary Farber]

Brett: "Motivation is not, often it's going to have to be inferred."

Just like it's done in courtrooms across America every day! Weird, eh?

"I mean, we've had people willing to claim, here, that 'oppressed' minority group members can't be racists."

No, mostly we keep having you claim people are saying that when they don't say that. Over and over and over you've claimed someone has said that, when they have not, and it's been pointed out to you that they have not, and you go on claiming it, falsely, anyway.

[The Raven]

"Hate crimes are specifically intended not merely to injure the individual, but to politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights."

This is a fair description of what is commonly called "terrorism," that is, violence as political act.

So maybe we could start calling such laws anti-domestic-terrorism acts?

Krawk!

[Lurker]

Brett,

if double jeopardy is your concern, it could be eliminated by legislation. The Congress could specifically legislate that no federal court has jurisdiction to hear a case brought up by US attorney, if the suspect has been prosecuted for the same acts by a state court. Similarly, the state legislatures could limit the state courts' purview. (Naturally, such legislation is unlikely to pass, but as far as I understand, it's constitutionally permissible.)

If this would make things too difficult for the prosecution, you could re-define the scope of "jeopardy" so that the jeopardy ends only when the appeals process is at its end. This way, the prosecution would have the chance to appeal. The right for jury trial could be preserved by having another jury in the court of appeals, in addition to judges.

[rea]

like any law providing multiple potential charges at different levels of jurisdiction, for the same physical act, hate crime laws provide a way to circumvent the double jeopardy clause.

Well, yeah, that's a big part of the reason for it, a concern that local prejudices are turning prosecutions of people who commit hate crimes into a farce. Look at the history of lynching in this country for examples.

That clause is practically dead at this point, but let's not put the final nail in the coffin.

Don't be ridiculous. The "multiple sovereign" exception is long-standing double jeopardy doctrine dating back to the 19th century.

[Joe]

Why must hyperbole like this be tossed in as icing or something:

"That clause is practically dead at this point, but let's not put the final nail in the coffin."

In what sense? Are people tried for robbery, murder, vandalism, et. al. on a consistent basis -- after being declared innocent -- retried so that the innocent verdict is meaningless?

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, which upheld sentencing enhancers in hate crimes, involved a black on white crime. This is not just a "get whitey" move.

TalkLeft's official policy is to be against hate crimes. They do a better job of it, but here's my .02. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it is best for minor crimes. OTOH, a general intimidation statute would be better than a hate crime law that only includes certain categories. Likewise, special protections of places of worship or the like make perfect sense.

As to murder, I don't see the point. The federal law as I recall is named in honor of Matthew Shephard. But, his murderers were punished severely.

Motivation is repeatedly at issue but it can be a tricky thing, so ultimately I have a pragmatic concern. Is it worth it in this case? First, these laws selectively target certain types of hate. Counter: they are the ones of special concern now and over time. Still, again, a general intimidation or harassment law is possible.

Second, for more serious crimes they provide societal divisiveness for little clear concrete ends. [My concern is to punish the crimes; punishing them with a 'plus' is secondary.] The penalties are already quite serious. Sen. Sessions' death penalty amendment underlines how excessive we can get here.

Making a federal case of local crimes also is a problem. This can also be a double jeopardy issue, though I don't think it is a sign the protection is meaningless. I can note a problem w/o hyperbole.

Finally, motivation IS tricky, especially when involving feelings about racial and other issues. Given that assault already will get you a punishment, the danger that bias will be assumed when it isn't there is of unclear value.

Anyway, TalkLeft and some others puts forth serious arguments. Using Richard Cohen for anything really is not worth our time. The guy is clearly a tool.

[Joe]

I said federal "law," but it's a pending bill.

Also, this issue is not really up there in my list of things that must be stopped. I respect the arguments on the other side. Also, the pending federal bill has fiscal, education, and other aspects that are overall quite benign.

I'd add Glenn Greenwald, who is dubious of hate crimes as a whole, had a post a few months back about the stupidity on the "anti" side as well.

[Phil]

First, what you did is fairly objective. Motivation is not, often it's going to have to be inferred. There may be failures at this step, there may be deliberate failures at this step. I mean, we've had people willing to claim, here, that 'oppressed' minority group members can't be racists. I suppose that means that they can't commit hate crimes, either?

1. You do know that, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, about 20% of reported race-biased hate crimes are committed by blacks, and about the same percentage are anti-white crimes, right? Wait, don't answer, because you clearly don't know that.

2. I sit on a grand jury. We infer motivation and intent all the time. Dozens of times a day. In fact, words like "intent," "attempt" and "motive" have particular statutory definitions.

3. As an example, we had a case recently in which two offenders robbed an 85 year old man inside his home, at knifepoint. One of the offenders stabbed the victim once in the back and once in the neck in the course of the crime. Neither wound, nor the combination of the two, were fatal; and the victim refused transport by EMS in favor of treatment on scene and seeing his own physician the next day. What are the appropriate charges in that case, Brett? What did the offender intend to do? Did his actions constitute the mens rea for attempted murder? Why or why not?

3. Are you also in favor of getting rid of other sentencing specifications like those for elderly victims, juvenile victims, handicapped victims, and sexual motivation (which often applies to kidnap charges)? Why or why not?

[Phil]

My second #3 should, obviously, be #4.

[Gary Farber]

"Using Richard Cohen for anything really is not worth our time. The guy is clearly a tool."

A point we may be able to achieve universal agreement upon!

[Jordan]

The racist feelings are behind those Post Office and DMV bashers who are acctualy talking about personality (not personal) experience they perceived and not about the service and effectiveness for the price.
The experience at the DMV and PO is that you are greeted by blacks or fat, mostly both or other races, which doesn't make it a very pleasant experience (for repug racists)unlike encountering a pretty and extremely friendly person at any other private company.
Such first encounters brings a lot of animosity and anxiety during contacts which reflects on the approach and that takes the toll on the service worker which becomes even more defensive. To add on it there are very strict rules that apply equally to every customer at government offices while many obnoxious, threatening and forceful customers can influence the protocols at private firms.
It is about the personality experience that Repugs play at, not the effectiveness and quality of service.

[Phil]

It's also worth pointing out that, for many crimes, the difference between the common variety and the aggravated variety -- e.g., burglary vs. aggravated burglary -- is, in fact motivation. Which -- you guessed it! -- quite often has to be inferred based on the actions of the offender. ("Burglary" being tresspass in an occupied structure without permission, and "aggravated burglary" being tresspass in an occupied structure with the intent to commit a felony.)

[Ugh]

Hate crimes are specifically intended not merely to injure the individual, but to politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights.

Hate crimes, in short, are politics by extralegal means.

I think this doesn't quite follow. Do hate crimes necessarily specifically intend to politically threaten the larger group and, even more dubiously, "deny them their civil rights"? Or should there be some additional evidence that that was the intent, rather than presuming it was (as it appears you do)? I mean, I can certainly imagine people going out and beating up someone who is a member of group X without ever giving any thought to the larger effect on group X, should they be punished more severely?

In one sense, all crimes criminalize "thought." The American criminal justice system requires showing not merely an act, but an intent. If I fall down accidentally and kill you, I can't be prosecuted. Yes, I committed an act of homicide, but I didn't intend to do that act.

I think the difference here that isn't quite articulated in the comments above is the thought that you are punishing hate crimes based on the message they send to others.* That is, if I rob someone because I think they have money, that's just plain robbery, but if I rob someone because they're a member of group X, all of a sudden I'm a much greater threat. And why? Because I've advertised that I don't like members of group X by means of what is an otherwise criminal act.

As such, this seems a little different from the typical mens rea required for criminal prosecution. In other words, if someone can express their hatred of group X via words without criminal prosecution, it might seem inappropriate to punish acts that convey the same message more harshly than the same acts that are not intended to convey the same message (presuming that they are in fact intended to send some sort of message).

*The obvious parallel here is terrorism, and more severe punishment for acts of terrorism based on the "message" sent can be criticized on the same grounds, I think.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One point that keeps getting overlooked, or only mentioned in passing, is the fact that the crimes punishable by hate crimes laws -- or other, similar laws such as laws against 'spousal abuse' whch can, as well, be considered 'hate crimes -- are those which 'society and the justice system' had previously 'turned a blind eye towards.'

Lynching -- and 'anti-lynching laws' were the first 'hate crimes laws' -- was a 'community sport' with no police or judges willing to punish activities they might have been a part of.

Gay bashing was almost a 'rite of passage' for teenage boys in small towns -- and a way for them to 'prove their own heterosexuality.'

Spousal abuse was viewed as the 'right of a husband to establish the proper relationship in the marriage' and 'none of the law's business.'

While there has been less anti-semitic violence in America than elsewhere, the vandalism we punish has been considered a 'minor prank' in the past by Christian communites uncomfortable with the presence of Jews.

And the similar vandalism -- which can reach the point of arson -- against people of the 'wrong type' moving into a neighborhood -- and which was designed not just to get Them to move out, but to keep other 'Thems' moving in -- rarely got the most diligent police work or the most strongent prosecution.

Hate crimes are good for many reasons -- since they punish action, not speech or thought -- but one is the fact that they are a way of society telling those who thought their actions were approved that this is no longer so.

[hairshirthedonist]

I mean, I can certainly imagine people going out and beating up someone who is a member of group X without ever giving any thought to the larger effect on group X, should they be punished more severely?

Perhaps not, but that goes to laws being well written and having trials.

In other words, if someone can express their hatred of group X via words without criminal prosecution, it might seem inappropriate to punish acts that convey the same message more harshly than the same acts that are not intended to convey the same message (presuming that they are in fact intended to send some sort of message).

But is it the same message? Beating up black people to scare other black people carries the message "Not only don't I like black people, but I'm willing to beat them up" as opposed to simply "I don't like black people." Which is why you're allowed to say you don't like black people, but you're not really allowed to threaten them with physical violence (even if you don't carry out the physical threat).

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Close your %@#*!& HTML you idiot

[hairshirthedonist]

I should add that I don't necessarily agree with every hate-crime law as currently written. I just share Publius' view that hate-crimes shouldn't be dismissed categorically as being fundamentally wrong.

[Turbulence]

I mean, I can certainly imagine people going out and beating up someone who is a member of group X without ever giving any thought to the larger effect on group X, should they be punished more severely?

But such people wouldn't be punished more severely. If group X membership really had nothing to do with it, then the prosecutor probably won't seek an indictment for aggravated assault as opposed to plain old assault. But even if the prosecutor did try to nail the criminals for aggravated assault, he'd have no evidence to present to the jury.

IANAL, but I believe that a victim's mere membership in a protected class is insufficient to prove a hate crime. You need something else, like a long history of the assailant writing anti-semitic diatribes or membership in the KKK or racial slurs screamed at the victim.

[hairshirthedonist]

On re-reading, my first comment was far more bold than I had intended.

[markus]

Ugh, the additional distinction you're missing is that hate crimes not merely convey the message the perpetrator doesn't like group X or is going to be mean to them in a general way. You're right, that would merely be speech. But hate crimes also say that the perpetrator is willing to commit crimes, unlawful acts, against group X, i.e. is willing to violate their rights of liberty, property and freedom from harm. That's a different statement altogether.
Advertising your dislike by criminal acts is different from advertising your dislike through words. The latter is open to public debate and scrutiny, the former constitutes a threat citizens equal under the law shouldn't have to endure.

Concerning the specificity of the political intent: If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater or send someone a death threat, it doesn't much matter, whether you thought it was funny, lost a bet, wanted to impress your significant other or were looking to get someone killed. If you're a grown-up, you are expected to understand what consequences your actions have, whether you specifically intended them or not.

[Turbulence]

Dare I end the bold?

[Phil]

What Turbulence said. In the hundreds of cases we've heard in grand jury, many of which may have on the surface qualified, in only one did the prosecutor consider adding a hate crime specification, and ended up not doing so. (Two offenders lured a victim to a location via a gay chat line, approached his car with guns drawn, attempted to rob him, and shot him to death.)

[Gwen]

Maybe we should just call hate crimes laws anti-terrorism laws instead and see if they get the same opposition.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Hate crimes don't involved 'protected classes.' That is why so many of us were annpyed at the Sessions' Amendment which did create a 'protected class' (of servicemen.

A hate crime has nothing to do with the actual fact of the victim's membership in a group. A straight man who happened to be walking his dog in front of a gay bar, and is beaten up because he is thought to be gay, a Sikh who is attacked by a group who hates Muslims and can't tell the difference, or somebody who sees my shaggy beard, knows I live in a primarily Jewish neighborhood, and attacks me thinking I am Jewish, are all committing hate crimes, even if they don't attack a member of the 'target group.'

[Ugh]

HSH: Beating up black people to scare other black people carries the message "Not only don't I like black people, but I'm willing to beat them up" as opposed to simply "I don't like black people." Which is why you're allowed to say you don't like black people, but you're not really allowed to threaten them with physical violence (even if you don't carry out the physical threat).

Well, you can't specifically threaten an individual wih physical violence (assuming it's imminent violence and the threat is credible), but I think you can threaten group X with physical violence w/o commiting a crime. I could be wrong.

Turb: If group X membership really had nothing to do with it, then the prosecutor probably won't seek an indictment for aggravated assault as opposed to plain old assault.

Sorry, I should have said beating up member of group X because that person is a member of group X. I can imagine people doing so without any intent to intimidate the larger group. Maybe that's implausible but I don't necessarily think so.

markus: But hate crimes also say that the perpetrator is willing to commit crimes, unlawful acts, against group X, i.e. is willing to violate their rights of liberty, property and freedom from harm.

Sort of related to my response to HSH above, but I'm not sure you can be arrested if you stood up in public and said "if I see any member of group X in my neighborhood, I'm will beat said person to death."

In any event, as I state above, I think the (often) unarticulated objection to hate crimes laws is that they are punishing someone for the message that person is (supposedly) conveying. Which again seems different from regular mens rea.

[Turbulence]

Jim, thanks for the correction.

Sorry, I should have said beating up member of group X because that person is a member of group X. I can imagine people doing so without any intent to intimidate the larger group. Maybe that's implausible but I don't necessarily think so.

If the perpetrators' minds really are pure as driven snow, then I don't see how they can be convicted of a hate crime since people with such pure minds don't usually have a long history of writing racist diatribes, screaming racial epithets, etc. Are you suggesting that there might be people who have in the past written anti-semitic things but beat up a Jewish man for completely unrelated reasons? Or what?

[CharlesWT]

"Close your %@#*!& HTML you idiot"

The very definition of missed opportunity. :)

[hairshirthedonist]

...but I think you can threaten group X with physical violence w/o commiting a crime. I could be wrong.

I guess this would come under terroristic threats as opposed to verbal assault.

[Ugh]

Are you suggesting that there might be people who have in the past written anti-semitic things but beat up a Jewish man for completely unrelated reasons? Or what?

No, I'm suggesting that a known anti-semite could beat up a Jewish man because he's Jewish without specifically intending to "politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights", as publius puts it.

[Turbulence]

No, I'm suggesting that a known anti-semite could beat up a Jewish man because he's Jewish without specifically intending to "politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights", as publius puts it.

Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I see a problem here. Regardless of what the assailant intended, a reasonable Jewish person surveying the situation would conclude "holy @#$! I better get out of here because this town is full of crazy people that beat Jews to within an inch of their life." That seems like a reasonable inference and the resulting reduction of liberty is a problem that doesn't disappear merely because the assailant didn't "mean" to intimidate anyone. The problem for society is not the assailant's state of mind but what other actors can reasonably infer about his state of mind.

The law is a blunt instrument and quite often punishes people somewhat more than it should or not as much as it should.

[Gary Farber]

What Turbulence said at 01:14 PM.

Personal intent in beating up a person whom the criminal thinks is of a certain class of people, as regards an intent of larger effects on that entire class of people, doesn't matter; what matters is that regardless of whether the criminal intends the larger effect, the larger effect is created. And that's something worth discouraging.

I'm sure that lots of lynchers didn't think "I want to hang Jim Jones because this will have a useful effect on our town n*****." Some did, but many just wanted to hang Jim Jones as an individual member of the class because he looked at a "white" woman the wrong way, or whatever. That it would intimidate other members of the class was merely an incidental benefit, not the primary motivation, in many cases.

The effect remained the same. Anti-lynching laws, as opposed to just anti-murder laws, remain a good and useful idea.

[mythago]

"It punishes thought or speech" is a dogwhistle for "But I like being openly bigoted and I don't want society to condemn that in any way."

That's why you get the pretense that hate-crime laws only protect blacks, or Jews, when in fact they apply to categories, like race, and they apply to motivation.

Gay man hates heterosexuals and beats up a man he thinks is straight, but who is in fact gay, as 'punishment'? Hate crime.

Anti-Semite attacks somebody he thinks is Christian in order to take his wallet, and never realizes the victim is Jewish? Not a hate crime.

[C.S.]

No, I'm suggesting that a known anti-semite could beat up a Jewish man because he's Jewish without specifically intending to "politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights", as publius puts it.

Which is why the law stratifies "intent" to separate "specific" intent, right? There are crimes where you have to show specific intent, and others where you don't, where intent is inferred, or where intent is immaterial. There are levels.

As publius argues, these are societal crimes. The beating-up part in your example affects the individual, and it hurts exactly the same if he's Jewish or Irish. But hate crime legislation is about the effect on the group. Anti-semite beats up Jew downtown in broad daylight for no reason other than he was wearing a yarmulke --- that's going to effect the group no matter what the specific intent of the anti-semite is. And if his motivation is to beat the guy up because he's Jewish, I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer an intent to intimidate the larger group, even if he's not shouting "y'all take note, this is gonna happen to every one of you if you don't skip town!" with every blow.

Which is all by way of saying . . . 'what Gary said.'

[Josh]

Phil and others' point that "It creates a protected class of people" is a canard can't be repeated often enough: Libertarian-in-Red-clothing Alexander Cockburn used that very lie in a recent column. Anti-white hate crimes do get recognized and prosecuted, as to homophobic hate crimes against straight people.

[markus]

No, I'm suggesting that a known anti-semite could beat up a Jewish man because he's Jewish without specifically intending to "politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights", as publius puts it.
Perhaps a clearer example than the one with the theater and the death threat above is aggravated robbery. In his own mind the criminal may have decided never to harm anyone, but the law - rightly - differentiates based on the effect on the victim.
And again, generally, but even more so with crime, people, including your anti-semite, have a responsibility to consider the ramifications of their acts. Reckless disregard for the message it sends and the effect on other jews is not an excuse. i.o.w. what Gary said on lynching

[CJColucci]

We have lots of different reasons for doing bad things like causing serious injury or death: I'm stupid or careless; I'm drunk; I saw the sonofabitch fucking my wife; I thought he was trying to kill me. The law treats people with these different reasons for assaulting or killing someone differently. Why is treating a reason like "I did it because I hate niggers" differently any different?

[Gary Farber]

"Libertarian-in-Red-clothing Alexander Cockburn used that very lie in a recent column"

Purely by absolute coincidence, I'm sure, that Cockburn (not to be confused with his relatives who are also writers) has a long history of writing many things that many people have felt crossed the line into antisemitism. I've, in the past, felt it was a fair conclusion, myself, though given my current computer limitations I'm unlikely to care to defend it at length if anyone wants to defend Cockburn from the charge. (Naturally enough, he's vociferously denied it at length. Somehow he keeps saying things that bring it up again, though.)

[Derek]

At what age is it considered immature to not laugh every time you see the name Cockburn? I find it hilarious.

As for prosecution of hate crimes, I don't see the problem. If DA's can manage to prosecute "conspiracy to commit" (surely a thought crime if there ever was one) then I don't think hate crimes statutes will magically turn the legal system upside down.

[doretta]

Are the people inclined to commit crimes really all that obsessed with politics?

The word "politics" in that sentence is a red herring.

No, the people in question aren't "obsessed with politics". They may well be obsessed with making sure "those people" stay out of their neighborhood or "get what they deserve" or don't "get uppity" or...

That they might believe themselves utterly uninterested in politics and do not identify their actions as "political" doesn't mean they aren't committing political acts.

[fairmack]

DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !

David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and other engines and type in "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," "Bible Verses Obama Avoids," and "Tribulation Index becomes Rapture Index.")

[Hartmut]

I think fairmack crossed the line there at 12:39 AM.