Hate Crime Laws: Removing Lady Justice’s Blindfold?
08 October 2009 | By dillon-kgmi in National PoliticsCaller Russ on PM Bellingham tonight made a great point by reminding us of the phrase engraved in stone on the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.: “Equal Justice Under Law”… further callers pointed out Lady Justice’s blindfold.
Listen here: http://www.kgmi.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4076746
Think about the significance of that blindfold. Our laws are not based on feelings or appearances — they’re based on principles. Hate crime legislation runs counter to that, since the only difference between a person committing a hate crime and the ‘average’ criminal is what’s happening in their mind.
Since when does Lady Justice weigh thoughts?
The House today extended the hate crime designation, but I’m arguing against ANY hate crime designation. I think all crimes committed against any person are hateful, no matter what reason the criminal cites. I’m in favor of punishing ALL crimes more harshly.
Why is this a problem for those who believe in hate crime laws?
UPDATE 10/09/09 - Interesting piece on hate crime laws here: http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1002/article/1199
09 October 2009 | Windy Said:
Completely agree with you Dillon, adding thought into the mix just allows the “justice” system to become even more unjust.
09 October 2009 | Peter Said:
That’s an interesting question, is a crime worse if you commit it because someone is gay, black, pro or anti-abortion?
I would agree that any type of crime deserves a penalty but does, for example, murdering someone because they are black deserve a harsher sentence than simply murdering someone because you like to murder people? Sounds like trying to put water in a bucket that’s already full. In both cases the murderer demonstrates they don’t belong in society.
One difference is that a normal murderer/offender could chose anyone, if it’s a hate crime it’s almost like some sort of twisted hunting season. The crime punctuates the belief that one group of people are less valuable than another. It certainly adds another sinister element to the pre-meditation. What’s better a thief or a racist thief? A vandal or a vandal that only targets pro-life churches?
06 November 2009 | Linda Said:
This PC society is so unjust. I’m sick of harsher crimes, more media attention, etc., on white suspects against people of a specific race, sexual orientation or religion. We are not supposed to be discriminating based on these things, but that is exactly what is happening. Today, the media is too afraid to say someone’s name unless they are white and Catholic, etc. It’s unbelievable. You better believe that if a person of a specific race, religion or sexual orientation different from attacks me, I’ll fight until I die for them to label it a hate crime and attach harsher punishments if convicted!!!
16 November 2009 | Maverick Said:
This topic is much like the issue reguarding the Fort Hood incident. Terrorism or not? Hate crime or not?
The similarity I see is the cronic problem making these issues difficult to address - distinguishing between crimes of Individual vs Individual, Individual vs Society or Society vs Society.
The problem with hate crime laws is they are argued to fight against “systemic” or “widespread” predjudice (Society vs Society), then target individuals for crimes against individuals (Individual vs Individual), but argue that the individual was targeted based solely on social discrimination (Individual vs Society). It will never matter how long people (or how many) get locked away if there is in fact a larger social movement convincing others that these criminal actions are justified, no matter the personal sacrifice, in the name of defending beliefs. If hate crime laws are indeed intended to address widespread discrimination they should focus on investigation of whether or not there is an influencial sect inciting this criminal behavior into society and then get to the root of the problem.
I think we’ve made great progress criminally and socially without hate crime laws to address discrimination. Laws like these only exaggerate the idea that people need to be handled with differential treatment rather than with equallity. From now on, make sure if you get in a dispute of any kind it’s with that one person in the mirror that’s exactly the same as you are. Otherwise, you’re just full of unjustified hate. Intolerance will not be tolerated.
20 November 2009 | KB Said:
I also saw a parallel between hate crime laws and whether the Fort Hood incident should be treated as terrorism. Joe T actually nailed it when he said something along the lines that it shouldn’t matter whether the incident is treated as terrorism or murder if our justice system is sufficient for dealing with murderers. Scope of investigation is probably very different for terrorism, but as far as trial and sentencing goes - I agree and would say exactly the same thing about the hate crime laws. If our justice system is not adequate, fix it across the board. What message does it send a victim if the sentence for one situation is significantly lighter than in a comparable crime where the only difference is whether the criminal and the victim are or aren’t the same race and whether or not racial slurs were used during the crime? Some victims are more equal that others? Go ahead and kill each other in your own neighborhoods and social groups, but keep it amongst yourselves or you’ll pay double? Seems like we should be looking for ways to make our justice system more equitable for various geographic, social and economic situations rather that less than it already is.