The defendants in the Amish case asked the appellate court to rule that the law never applies to intra-religious disputes. This might have made sense as a matter of policy, but not as a legal matter in the case at hand. As the law is written, it covers hate crimes by co-religionists. The court instead pragmatically restricted the law’s reach to cases where a religious motive predominates.How do we know when people are co-religionists? Seemingly co-religionists have been attacking each other for thousands of years. Some of the worst disputes are over the scope of the religion — who's the heretic? — and the outsider's perception that they're in the same religion ignores the nature of the fight. Is it the same religion or different? It would be unwise to interpret the federal hate crime statute to force judges and juries to determine whether criminal defendants and their victims belong to the same religion. It's too close to having trials about religious orthodoxy. That's not what we do in America.
The 6th Circuit still leaves the courts looking into the minds of religionists and assessing the religiosity of their motivations, when it would be better to be "done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths" (to quote the last line of my all-time favorite judicial opinion, Justice Jackson dissenting in United States v. Ballard). But we've got this federal hate-crimes statute, and it's stood up to judicial review, and what choice does an intermediate appellate court have but to muddle through?
Posts
39 comments:
Much ill will inevitably come from criminalizing people's thoughts.
a large umbrella Church has its critics that are kicked out. to preserve its identity. But it takes a sect that follows a certain doctrine to the death to really end up in a war with a split off group that sect where both want to fight the nuance of enforcement to their own death. (See, Shia v Sunni.)
This is the one aspect at which Roman Catholics do better than Reformation Christians....and Episcoplaians split the difference.
I might be in the minority on this, but I find the whole concept of "hate crime" absurd and dangerous. Hate is far too subjective to apply to a legal standard. A perpetrators emotional state during a crime is largely recondite and in an ideal world wouldn't be relevant anyway. But we don't live in such a world.
"But we've got this federal hate-crimes statute, and it's stood up to judicial review, and what choice does an intermediate appellate court have but to muddle through?"
Step down and refuse to render judgement?
Declare the higher-ups to be wrong in their review of hate-crime law, and accept the consequences? Write a cutting and brilliant piece in support of that conclusion?
Go into the wilderness and become a hermit?
You are far from alone Nonapod.
We already have hate crime long established in our differentiation of different types of murder.
Until we face that problem, courts will not be up to the task of pointing out the ridiculousness of hate-crime law.
Now that atheism is recognized as a 1st-Amendment "religion," when an Marxist atheist attacks an Ayn-Rand atheist Objectivist for her politics, is that a "hate crime"?
I can't help agree with Nonapod: "hate-crime" law is bullshit.
I suspect Feldman of secret sympathies with the People's Front of Judea. I denounce him. Very truly yours,
— Beldar, self-appointed Temporary Grand Master and Oracle,
Judean People's Front
The term "hate crime" and all attendant laws regarding such should be struck from the books. "hate" is only a motive to an actual crime.
"Hate" doesn't make a person any more dead than someone who is a victim of a random crime.
All this does is put thought in the realm of criminal conduct. Hate isn't measurable in any real sense. It's subjective, rather than objective. Mostly it's people getting their feelings hurt. And frankly, there is no right to not have your feelings hurt. There's no right to not be offended.
It's a crime of vexation, for Amish.
I understand why the idea of hate crime laws are so appealing. Where it fails is in that it doesn't recognize the source of hate. Hate doesn't come from the mind, it comes from the heart. It's not logical. The person who commits an act of aggression on another person is acting in passion, and I seriously doubt that there is a mental calculation that takes place in the mind of the aggressor weighing the additional penalty which will be meted out.
As a result the law fails inasmuch as it fails to prevent harm to *some* particular group. The additional penalty is at best a salve applied to the wound of the injured party. Which as someone else has stated serves essentially sooth hurt feelings.
I see no basis in the constitution for such legislation , because the bill of rights provides no protection to groups of people, but only to individuals. Or individuals as they exist in groups.
There is an underlying belief by lawmakers that every problem must have a solution, and since the only tool in their toolbox is the ability to legislate that's what they do.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
If ideological differences are at the root of hate crimes, are crimes of passion love crimes?
As long as hate-crime laws only punish actual crimes, the statement at the top is false.
If we're going to vary punishments based on motivations, it's no more oppressive to punish a Jew for attacking a Christian than it is to punish a Christian for attacking a Jew.
As I said on the previous thread, I'm with those who say there should be no "hate crime" law. Of course, we're stuck with it until Congress gets wise and repeals it (like Obamacare). The linked article says that there's no doubt that the law applies to crimes against co-religionists. I'll assume that's true, although the article doesn't attempt to support the statement. So we're stuck with that, too. If I were a judge, then, my objective would be to construe the law reasonably, but narrowly. For that purpose, a "but for" test would make sense for ALL alleged "hate crimes" whether against a co-religonist or a member of a totally different religion. There would be no need to determine whether the parties involved are members of the same religion or not, so long as the jury is instructed that it may not convict unless the attack would not have occurred except for religion.
I would apply the same standard to whatever group the "hate" is allegedly against.
Who was it that said something along the lines of "the best strategem to get rid of a bad law is its vigorous enforcement"? Maybe this is one of those.
Hate crime legislation is terrible legislation and ought to be repealed.
I'd rather have someone commit a crime against me because they hate me, than because they don't think of me at all. What ever happened to "Cold blooded killing"? Those are the people I worry about. Not normal people, who get so angry sometimes, they hate.
There's an observation, "there have been more wars fought over the number of buttons on the bishop's cassock than over the basic nature of God." I don't know the source.
Is it too much to hope that cases like this start to turn the tide against hate crimes laws? We punish actions, not thoughts. The first amendment is pretty clear on that point.
There was never a religious war like The Hundred Years War in Germany. It finally stayed stopped when everyone got tired of starving to death because the Armies were living off the land like Sherman's March to the Sea that only lasted 9 weeks.
Nonapod said...
I might be in the minority on this, but I find the whole concept of "hate crime" absurd and dangerous.
Hatecrime is a stepping stone to Thoughtcrime.
I don't understand the concept of hate crimes either. Why are they worse? Murdering someone for money is better? Murdering someone out of jealousy is better? Murdering someone to cover up other crimes is better? Murdering someone out of a psychopathic lust for violence is better? Say what?
Lots of women hate being pregnant and they're encouraged to act on it.
"Hate crimes" are an affront to justice, morality, and intelligence. How you feel about someone means nothing. It's your actions that count.
"I don't understand the concept of hate crimes either. Why are they worse?"
I think the motivation for a 'hate crimes' law is easier to see when you pick an action whose purely criminal element is fairly minor. Like burning a cross on somebody's lawn – what crime has been committed here? Trespass, vandalism, what else? All fairly minor crimes, and yet presumably the impact of a cross-burning on somebody's lawn is disproportionately greater than those minor crimes. Thus the 'hate crime', to bridge that gap between the minor harassment and the severe impact on the recipient.
(Just a guess on my part.)
"I might be in the minority on this, but I find the whole concept of 'hate crime' absurd and dangerous."
Yes, this is absolutely true. "Hate crimes" laws are nothing more nor less than laws against "thought crime." If one assaults another in the commission of a robbery, or because of a personal beef, there are laws that pertain to assault and battery, and various potential punishments that apply. If one assaults another in the exact same manner, yet yells a derogatory epithet or if for any other reason the authorities determine the assault to have been a "hate crime," i.e., motivated by hatred of the victim's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., the crime is automatically made a much more serious offense, with "enhanced" punishments.
What's the difference? What is being punished in the latter case? One's thoughts about the victim.
"Hate crimes" laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
A better case for a hate crime might be the prosecutors in Wisconsin who went after the Republicans. One could also mention the Perry indictment, hate is easily discernable in many of those cheering that indictment.
Unfortunately, I suspect hate really isn't the operative noun in hate laws. More likely racism and homophobia were the intended targets. Because liberals hate racism and homophobia except when it is directed at Republicans.
@Freeman Compare it to terrorism. Beyond the immediate victim, there is the message of threat to others in the targeted group. It prosecutions are focused on cases like that, it would make some sense.
Professor, I see what you are saying and at first my response is, "OK." The problem I see is that the Hate Crime designation lends itself to gov't favored thoughts and other thoughts that are deemed unworthy at the discretion of prosecutors. Does anybody believe the present AG or DOJ would be impartial in the implementation?
Well, I must say the idea of "Hate Crime" when it was first touted smacked too much of the "Thought Police."
Let's see. You slapped somebody. That'll be $3,000 and 30 days in the lockup.
It was a Public Servant you slapped?? Well, lookee here. We can double the penalty for that!
And you say you *hate* public servants?? OK, we can just double it again!
So.... what is the penalty for just *hating* - not taking any action, just for what's in your head?
Once the individual who commits a crime out of hatred or any other extensible cause is incarcerated or otherwise neutralized, then there is no longer a threat posed to any other individual or class of individuals. The reasoning behind the "hate crime" laws is inherently flawed. Only in a war is there a limited presumption that a threat is posed by a larger class of individuals.
The "hate crime" lwas are not intended to protect a class of individuals, nor give them peace of mind (other than with promises of redistributive and retributive change), but to intimidate and control another class of individuals. The "hate crime" laws are based on degenerate doctrines of collective and inherited sin.
"It (sic) prosecutions are focused on cases like that, it would make some sense."
Haven't we learned yet that prosecutors can not be trusted to do what we think is right?
""Hate crimes" laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished."
Robert! My man!
First there are the Hate Crimes. Next will be the Frenemy Crimes.
Althouse quoted Feldman: "Religious groups whose beliefs pervade their whole world view see everyone in terms of religion. Any assault they commit might be considered a federal crime..."
Good. It's about time we noticed that criminal acts may have religious motives and treated those motives as we would any other group attack on civil order.
We in the Christian West agreed to stop fighting about religious belief and place it outside state authority about 300 years ago.
That has worked for us, because aside from a few weirdies like Scientologists and Jim Jones, we didn't have any religious criminals. Jefferson famously wrote that his neighbor's religious belief "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
That has changed with the rise of jihadism: there are now millions of people whose beliefs direct them to commit criminal acts.
We cannot stop the criminal acts until their religious beliefs change. And that means someone has to persuade them their present beliefs are wrong.
Cracking down on religious groups whose members commit crimes because of their belief is a first step.
'Godfather' at 4:35 PM: Of course, we're stuck with it until Congress gets wise and repeals it...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Pardon me for laughing in your face, Señor. Don't you know? We hire Legislators to MAKE laws. We gauge their effectiveness on how many laws are PASSED.
"That has changed with the rise of jihadism: there are now millions of people whose beliefs direct them to commit criminal acts."
When did this supposed "rise of jihadism" take place? Ever hear of Constantinople? Jefferson was not concerned about his neighbors' religion because none of his neighbors were Muslims. But he knew a little about Muslims;
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."
It was President Jefferson who refused to pay tribute to the Pasha of Tripoli, thus instigating the Barbary Wars. Jefferson understood the sorts of arguments that are effective in countering the teachings of the Koran, which has not changed by so much as a letter in the intervening centuries.
From Jackson's dissent;
"Religious symbolism is even used by some with the same mental reservations one has in teaching of Santa Claus or Uncle Sam or Easter bunnies or dispassionate judges."
Apparently, this relates to Althouse's ongoing interest in the sincerity of religious belief.
"... between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
Sounds pretty sincere to me. Might even be a case here for reparations for all those hate crimes.
Traditionalguy:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Hundred Years War (1337 to 1453) was between England and France.
The Thirty Years War (1618 to 1648) was what you are likely thinking of. Several dimensions: Protestant <> Catholic; independent Princes <> Hapsburg hegemony; Bourbon <> Hapsburg; etc.
It corresponded with the tail end of the Eighty Years War for Dutch Independence from the Spanish Hapsburgs (1568 to 1648).
CV Wedgwood's 'Thirty Years War' audio book (Amazon/Audible) is well written, but hard to follow as an audio book. We had to also get the paperback from Amazon.
That, of course, lead us to order Wedgwoods's 'William the Silent' thru Amazon.
Cheers, - Hammond
Another reason hate crimes laws make no sense.
I can't help agree with Nonapod: "hate-crime" law is bullshit.
Ah. but soon critisizing Obama is going to be a hate crime. The left has already told us so.
Post a Comment