A kindly reader recently e-mailed me links to
and
which deal with vandalism committed against a pro-life display down in Louisiana.
The display consists of 4,000 crosses to symbolize the 4,000+ children who are murdered each day in this country by abortion.
Pro-abort hooligans vandalized 3,000 of the crosses, including doing juvenile things like spelling out the words "Pro-choice" with them.
Police officers told them to stop but did not arrest them.
Excerpts from the first story:
“This is not a game,” [display organizer Mary] Higdon said, “this is private property.”
The crosses, which were on loan from St. Mary and St. Joseph Family Memorial Foundation, cost $3 a piece to make, Higdon said.
Richard Mahoney, president of the foundation, said they have been
lending crosses to Students for Life for 10 years and that vandalism
has occurred before, but never like this.Mahoney is furious, and said that if LSUPD does not handle the situation justly, he has lawyers prepared to file suit.
“Defacing a religious symbol is a hate crime,” Mahoney said.
Mahoney said the vandals damaged more than $9,000 worth of private property, which should be prosecuted as a felony.
But Adams said there is no way of knowing who took what, so the
identified individuals probably will be charged with misdemeanor
charges.Mahoney said that if a Jewish or other religious minority group set
up an exhibit that vandals defaced, such as the Star of David, the act
would not be tolerated.He said a Christian organization should not have to tolerate it either.
He’s right. No Christian organization should tolerate this. I am outraged by it. I’m happy to provide coverage of this. If they can nail somebody for a felony, great. I think that the individuals responsible for the vandalism should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law–or, at least, the full extent of the justice of the law.
But I have a quibble about one point: Just because the law may provide a penalty does not mean that the penalty is just. The law can overreach justice, and I think that is what happens with "hate crime" legislation.
Such legislation selectively isolates motive in some cases in order to extend special protections to certian groups (the targets of the "hate"). In reality, anybody who has a crime committed against him is the victim of malice, and to create certain classes protected by "hate crime" legislation selectively favors these classes over others, who are equally victims of malice. This contributes to the polarization of our society and works against the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.
Consequently, I don’t favor hate crimes legislation. I don’t favor it when it works to the benefits of groups to which I don’t belong or of groups to which I do belong (e.g., Catholics, Christians, religious people, pro-lifers).
To my mind, if someone commits vandalism, you charge him with vandalism. You don’t charge him with vandalism plus harming a specially-protected group.
So, to the folks down in Lousiana, I say: Run these malefactors out of town on a rail, but do it on the vandalism charge, not the "hate crimes" charge. We’ll all be better off the sooner we get over this "hate crimes" nonsense.
Well said Jimmy!
Amen!
Sometimes you have to make the other guy walk in your moccasins before he’ll realize that he has done wrong. Such as with hate crimes legislation. When it starts to backfire on the anti-Christian elements that came up with these Orwellians regs, perhaps they will be repealed
Looking at this from a broader sense, it’s not really about protection of special groups. It’s about having to come up with new laws because we don’t enforce the old ones.
Here’s a hypothetical example:
All states have laws against speeding, but these laws are not always enforced.
One day in a central California city, a near-sighted woman carrying a shopping bag of avocados is in a crosswalk next to an elementary school, and is nearly hit by a driver talking on a cell phone, eating a taco, and driving 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. The woman drops the avocados, and two of them are badly bruised.
Now, in the rational world, the driver would be cited for speeding. Unfortunately, several political advisers to California Assemblypersons read the story about the near-miss, and each of them came up with his/her own solution to make sure that this terrible event would never happen again.
The first one gets a bill through the Assembly banning cell phone use in moving cars.
The second one gets a bill through the Assembly banning eating in moving cars (although California products such as avocados were eventually excluded from the ban).
The third one gets a bill through the Assembly providing special protection to people with vision problems (and, via amendment, providing special protection to people under 5′ 6″ and over 6′ 1″).
The fourth one gets a bill through the Assembly allowing civil lawsuits (including pain and suffering) for persons who lose personal property in a school zone due to a threat to the public safety (although an amendment explicitly stated that blaring rap music was NOT a threat to the public safety).
All four Assemblypersons bragged about the bills they had passed, and proclaimed to one and all that California was now a safer place because of their prompt action on behalf of the people.
Agree with you 100% on hate crime legislation. What needs to be punished is the action and state of mind (ie, was the action done intentionally, recklessly or negligently – all well defined concepts in both civil and criminal law). Evidence of hatefulness toward the particular race, ethnicity, religion, etc. of the victim can be introduced to show the action was done intentionally, rather than simply recklessly or negligently. But an act intentionally done because you hate someone’s loud music is just as intentional as that same act performed b/c you hate someone’s religion. Punishing one form of intentional conduct more than the other because of the content of the thought involved (hating religion v. hating loud music) is an odious form of thought control. You will be punished for having the wrong thoughts.
Enhanced penalties for “hate crimes” are appropriate because such crimes target not just the particular victim, but all of the members of that victim’s group or classification.
It’s one thing if someone is beaten to within an inch of their life b/c they happened down a dark alley on the wrong side of town at the wrong time of day. The rest of us can avoid that by simply avoiding the area at the wrong times.
It’s another thing altogether for someone to be beaten to within an inch of their life because of the color of their skin or even their professed religion. Those are things you can’t, or at least ought not to have to, change or supress. Such crimes inflict a harm beyond the immediate victim and that harm should be redressed.
The bigger question is why, at a time when torturing human beings is now the policy of our nation, simple property vandalism is even a crime.
And why do you think it appropriate for people to be afraid to walk about in public?
“Enhanced penalties for “hate crimes” are appropriate because such crimes target not just the particular victim, but all of the members of that victim’s group or classification.”
Pardon my French, but that is BS…
That people would appropriate another person’s pain for themselves (for whatever reason) does not justify adding punishment for the perpetrator. Its not his fault that “special interest groups” are starved for victimhood.
If it can be shown that an act was intended to terrorize a particular group by using a member or a few members as examples, I could support added penalties beyond the usual for the crimes themselves. But hating is not a crime, and when tack on punishments for having negative feelings against the person whose rights one has violated, we’re in the area of thought crime.
I dont like hate crime legislation because it makes bad thoughts illegal of which we are all prone to. If anyone on this forum can say that they have never blanketed an entire group of people negatively in thier mind because of the actions of a few; minorities, muslims, rich people, poor people, Republicans, Democrats, gays, protestants, Catholics etc, then I would be prone to think you are lying.
In fact, I would think in todays terms Jesus might have been slapped with hate crimes against the Jews despite the fact that his actual intentions are for their salvation. To me the concept of making it illegal to think less of someone, even if it is so far as dire hatred, is a step down a road we should not take. We all have intended harm before, many of us even to a level where the thought, if carried out, would land us in jail for a very long time. Should that be illegal too, as those of us who struggle with our biases fight through them? … It only becomes a problem when we commit a crime for which there are perfectly good laws to prosecute by.
Besides, does it really make any of us feel any better to lock up a murder of a gay man for 5 life sentences and the murderer of a child for 50 years just because nobody could figure out whether or not the guy really hated the child? Is not ALL life special enough to warrant prosecution to the fullest extent offered on their behalf? That is essentially what we are doing. We are saying that some murdered are more important than others ….
Until these badthought crime regs are repealed, I think that we do need to enforce them when they are used against groups that the authors of such regs were intending to harm. Such as pro-life groups, eucharistic processions, street evangelism, etc.
One of the purposes of the law, according to Paul writing Timothy (whose feast we celebrated yesterday) is to instruct wrong-doers about what is right and what is wrong. In this case, to instruct authors of “hate crimes” legislation of the folly of their legislation.
Does that make sense?
“Hate crimes” legislation is not designed to redress harm against a particular group, but to indoctrinate certain patterns of thinking with respect to the specially protected group. Thus enhanced penaltiesd for killing a gay man is not designed to protect or redress harm against gays as a group, but to send the message that disliking gays (or what they do or represent) is an improper attitude – so improper that you will be extra punished for thinking that way.
If someone hates a particular group bad enough to get a 50 year sentence for killing a member of it, tacking on an extra 15 years won’t deter him. But it will send a message to the rest of us about what thoughts are government approved.
As for “terrorism” enhancement, why does it need to be identity specific? Why can’t a gang that regularly commits drive-by shootings of a culturally diverse neighborhood in order to extract protection money (or just for the fun of it) be just as guilty of terrorism as a gang that does it b/c they hate Muslims?
Anyone who knows anything about criminal law knows that a defendants thoughts, or intent, are a crucial element of many, many crimes and directly affects the applicable sentence.
And “hate crimes” have nothing to do with what some of you might casually dismiss as the “tender sensibilities” of the particular group involved. They are meant to punish individuals who commit a crime that is not only meant to harm the particular victim, but to “send a message” to others who are like that victim.
I suppose those of you who oppose “hate crimes” laws are also opposed to laws which enhance the punishment for acts which are designated “terrorism”?
Cmatt:
Actually, the way the Justice Department was run under Ashcroft, many prosecutor’s offices felt pressured to characterize the type of drive-by shooting that you posit exactly as “terrorism” to boslter their “Patriot Act” stats.
I just don’t see how giving a guy an extra 10, 15 or even life “redresses” any additional harm? Its still the same one guy locked up. No compensation is given to the group as a group. The charges are brought by the state on behalf of ALL the people, not just the victim or victim group (thus, State v. John Doe, Texas v. Bill Roe). And as in my previous post, “terrorism” can be punished without having to single out specific victim group identities. Unless, of course, your goal is not to redress harm caused by inflicting terror, but to promote a certain pattern of thought.
Esquire:
And criminal law differentiates between states of mind (intentional, reckless, negligent), not content of mind (I believe ____ are wrong, bad, ugly, etc.). While the fact that Defendant hates gays is evidence that he intentionally killed Gay Victim rather than accidentally hit him with a baseball bat, that crime is no more intentional than if Defendant hated Victim b/c Victim stole his girlfriend and made his feelings know to Victim through the same baseball bat. The poiint is, both are intentional crimes, and should be punished as intentional crimes. One is not more intentional than the other. Evidence of particular motive and bias is admissible to show intent, but once intent is established, it serves no further purpose. Unless, of course, you want to punish the content of particular thoughts. I would hope that with a name like Esquire you would be able to see this distinction.
Esquire
Your thinking seems very strange on this. You say…
‘It’s another thing altogether for someone to be beaten to within an inch of their life because of the color of their skin or even their professed religion.’
…what is the difference to the person who is beaten within an inch of their life for either reason? The fists, and feet and blows all hurt equally. It’s only your perception of the situation which is different. The actual beating and it’s effects are identical.
Further, you state…
‘Such crimes inflict a harm beyond the immediate victim and that harm should be redressed.’
…which is false. The ‘group’ may *feel* harmed, but in actuality, they suffer no actual harm as related to the specific beating. The problem here is trying to appropriate such harm to the group is a purely subjective endeavor. The person in scenario 1 surely belongs to SOME religion, group or race (even if the race is caucasian). Shall we try to import some subjective motivation into that case as well? How can you know that they were beaten ONLY because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can we make such distinctions.
The important fact is that it is morally wrong to beat an innocent person within an inch of their life, whatever the motivation. THAT is what needs to be punished. End of Story.
I suppose those of you who oppose “hate crimes” laws are also opposed to laws which enhance the punishment for acts which are designated “terrorism”?
Not as long as terrorism against gays, religious groups, racial groups, etc. are given the same treatment as terrorism against the public at large. The point is not that animosity toward a certain group can’t be used as evidence – sure it can. The animosity can show that the perpetrator’s actions were intended to cause fear among many, not just directed at one individual victim, and if that is the definition of “terrorism”, great, prosecute the hell out of him. But why should terrorism against “gays” deserve special treatment by enhanced punishment, but terrorism against an undefined group (say a neighborhood with gays, straights, Christians, Jews, athiests, etc.) get the regular punishment?
Steven:
I’m sorry, but it’s not the end of the story.
I don’t know where you live, but I suspect that a not-insignificant number of people are shot and killed there every year. That probably doesn’t greatly affect the way you live your life.
However, what if someone, out of animus toward the Church, starts picking people off as they walk into Church. Would that impact the way you approach taking yourself and your family to Mass?
Esquire
>>However, what if someone, out of animus toward the Church, starts picking people off as they walk into Church. Would that impact the way you approach taking yourself and your family to Mass?
Of course it would change my behavior, and I’d expect law enforcement to try to stop and apprehend that person and punish them under the laws that state that such actions are illegal. and….I could care less if they tacked on additional feel good penalties because of his motivation that he hates Catholics.
So, if someone started picking off people at random as they walked into their apartment, would it effect the way the families living there approach entering their house? So I suppose we need a special law to make it a special crime to pick off people entering that apartment building? There simply is no substantive difference here. People who pick people off should be punished regardless of their motivation, and there is not logical reason to go beyond that other than to try to control the wider populations thoughts.
Esquire:
You seem to be missing the point. There are no such things as “hate crimes”. There are intentional crimes, reckless crimes, and criminally negligent crimes (in fact, reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide are two of the claims being brought against that suicidal train guy in CA). He’s a perfect example. Suppose that, instead of leaving his car on the tracks to comit suicide, he left it there b/c he knew his wife was on the train and he wanted to kill her. If she was and he succeeded, that would be the intentional murder of her, not to mention the reckless and negligent homicide of the others on the train.
Now suppose he hates gays. He knows a gay guy was on the train. He leaves his car there to kill the gay guy and succeeds, as well as killing the same number he did in the wife scenario. Again, he intended to kill the one guy (b/c he was gay) – an intentional crime. He also recklessly and negligently killed many others.
Thus, the evidence that he hated his wife, or hated gays, and knew that his wife, or knew that a gay guy, was on the train, are all admissible to show he acted with intent to kill. But why should the punishment for intentionally killing the gay guy be more severe than the punishment for killing his wife – he hated them both enough to kill them and many innocent bystanders in the process?
Its the mental state (knowing and intentional) not the content of the mental state (hating gays or hating wife) that counts legally.
This is why hate crime laws are really thought control laws – a difference in punishment for killing his wife vs killing the gay guy sends the message that we should value gays more than wives.
about:c matt’s comment (mid page)
How would you know that when someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time and is beaten within an inch of his life and he is a different religion then the man who did it.Then how would you know the victim is not just taking advantage of his position by saying he beat me because I was a different religion.
And when your in the wrong place at the wrong time you dont know it until something bad happens so that would mean that you cant prevent being in the wong place at the wrong time.