What was she thinking when she pulled the trigger?
I reproduce a column by Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe from May 16, 2007. This is another column on the ridiculousness of "hate crimes". As in, it is absolutely impossible to prove what anyone was thinking when they committed a crime. Italics and super-bold are mine for emphasis (well, except for highlighting the title of the column).
The column:
Do some victims deserve less justice?
May 16, 2007
by Jeff Jacoby
BY A VOTE of 237 to 180, the House of Representatives voted on May 3 to broaden the federal hate-crime law, extending it to violent attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. During debate on the bill, majority leader Steny Hoyer offered the familiar argument that crimes motivated by hatred are worse than other violent crimes and therefore deserve harsher punishment.
"Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?" said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. "Because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identity, or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric."
When they introduced similar legislation in the Senate two years ago, Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith made a related argument: "Hate crimes . . . send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be assaulted or even murdered solely because of who they are. . . . These are crimes against entire communities."
But is a fixation with "hate" the right way to punish crime?
Two days after the House vote, as if to drive home the brutal reality of hate crimes, the Associated Press reported on a recent surge in violent, sometimes lethal, attacks by young thugs against members of an exposed and vulnerable minority group. Among the incidents described were the fatal bludgeoning of August Felix by three teenagers in Orlando last year; the bloody assault by punks with baseball bats on 58-year-old Jacques Pierre in Fort Lauderdale; the murder in Spokane of a one-legged man who was burned to death in his wheelchair; and the drowning of a woman in Nashville by two men who shoved her off a boat ramp into the Cumberland River.
Yet the hate-crime bill making its way through Congress wouldn't have done a thing about these vicious attacks. In the four cases above, as in scores like them around the country every year, the victims were homeless people -- and not even the most horrific assaults on the homeless are covered by federal hate-crime legislation.
To be sure, it doesn't take a federal law to make it a crime to beat a homeless man to death with baseball bats. But that's true of every violent crime, including the ones that would be covered by the bill in Congress. So why should "hate crimes" motivated by racial, religious, or sexual bigotry be punished more severely than equally hateful crimes motivated by contempt for the homeless? If a bunch of hoodlums murder a man by setting him on fire in his wheelchair, what moral difference does it make whether they despised him for being disabled (covered by the new bill) or for being a street person (not covered)? Is it worse to douse a man with gasoline and strike a match while shouting, "We hate cripples!" than to do the exact same thing while shouting "We hate the homeless" -- or "We hate skinheads" or "We hate Communists"?
It is indecent for the government to declare that a murder or mugging or rape is somehow more terrible when the murderer or mugger or rapist is motivated by bigotry against certain favored groups. The inescapable implication is that murders, muggings, and rapes committed against other groups are less terrible. In a society dedicated to the ideal of "equal justice under law" -- the words are chiseled above the entrance to the Supreme Court -- it is immoral and grotesque to enact legal rules that make some victims of hatred are more equal than others.
In fact, the law has no business intensifying the punishment for violent crimes motivated by bigotry at all. Murderers should be prosecuted and punished with equal vehemence no matter why they murder -- whether out of hatred or sadistic thrill-seeking or revenge or the promise of money. It is not the criminal's evil thoughts that society has a right to punish, but his evil deeds.
There are a host of other problems with the bill passed by the House -- it is of dubious constitutionality, it federalizes prosecutions that belong at the state level, and any act it would apply to is already illegal. But its most grievous failing is the one it shares with all hate-crime laws: By turning the criminal code into an affirmative-action schedule, they undermine social justice. They treat equal victims unequally, and give too much weight to the beliefs of an attacker and too little to the brutality of his attack. (End of column.)
I reproduce a column by Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe from May 16, 2007. This is another column on the ridiculousness of "hate crimes". As in, it is absolutely impossible to prove what anyone was thinking when they committed a crime. Italics and super-bold are mine for emphasis (well, except for highlighting the title of the column).
The column:
Do some victims deserve less justice?
May 16, 2007
by Jeff Jacoby
BY A VOTE of 237 to 180, the House of Representatives voted on May 3 to broaden the federal hate-crime law, extending it to violent attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. During debate on the bill, majority leader Steny Hoyer offered the familiar argument that crimes motivated by hatred are worse than other violent crimes and therefore deserve harsher punishment.
"Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?" said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. "Because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identity, or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric."
When they introduced similar legislation in the Senate two years ago, Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith made a related argument: "Hate crimes . . . send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be assaulted or even murdered solely because of who they are. . . . These are crimes against entire communities."
But is a fixation with "hate" the right way to punish crime?
Two days after the House vote, as if to drive home the brutal reality of hate crimes, the Associated Press reported on a recent surge in violent, sometimes lethal, attacks by young thugs against members of an exposed and vulnerable minority group. Among the incidents described were the fatal bludgeoning of August Felix by three teenagers in Orlando last year; the bloody assault by punks with baseball bats on 58-year-old Jacques Pierre in Fort Lauderdale; the murder in Spokane of a one-legged man who was burned to death in his wheelchair; and the drowning of a woman in Nashville by two men who shoved her off a boat ramp into the Cumberland River.
Yet the hate-crime bill making its way through Congress wouldn't have done a thing about these vicious attacks. In the four cases above, as in scores like them around the country every year, the victims were homeless people -- and not even the most horrific assaults on the homeless are covered by federal hate-crime legislation.
To be sure, it doesn't take a federal law to make it a crime to beat a homeless man to death with baseball bats. But that's true of every violent crime, including the ones that would be covered by the bill in Congress. So why should "hate crimes" motivated by racial, religious, or sexual bigotry be punished more severely than equally hateful crimes motivated by contempt for the homeless? If a bunch of hoodlums murder a man by setting him on fire in his wheelchair, what moral difference does it make whether they despised him for being disabled (covered by the new bill) or for being a street person (not covered)? Is it worse to douse a man with gasoline and strike a match while shouting, "We hate cripples!" than to do the exact same thing while shouting "We hate the homeless" -- or "We hate skinheads" or "We hate Communists"?
It is indecent for the government to declare that a murder or mugging or rape is somehow more terrible when the murderer or mugger or rapist is motivated by bigotry against certain favored groups. The inescapable implication is that murders, muggings, and rapes committed against other groups are less terrible. In a society dedicated to the ideal of "equal justice under law" -- the words are chiseled above the entrance to the Supreme Court -- it is immoral and grotesque to enact legal rules that make some victims of hatred are more equal than others.
In fact, the law has no business intensifying the punishment for violent crimes motivated by bigotry at all. Murderers should be prosecuted and punished with equal vehemence no matter why they murder -- whether out of hatred or sadistic thrill-seeking or revenge or the promise of money. It is not the criminal's evil thoughts that society has a right to punish, but his evil deeds.
There are a host of other problems with the bill passed by the House -- it is of dubious constitutionality, it federalizes prosecutions that belong at the state level, and any act it would apply to is already illegal. But its most grievous failing is the one it shares with all hate-crime laws: By turning the criminal code into an affirmative-action schedule, they undermine social justice. They treat equal victims unequally, and give too much weight to the beliefs of an attacker and too little to the brutality of his attack. (End of column.)
posted by Zack at 6:30 PM
12 Comments:
To paraphrase one of your favorite Presidents, "there you go again, ZacklyRight." You are just wrong when you say "it is absolutely impossible to prove what anyone was thinking when they committed a crime." The criminal laws are chock full of examples of when what one was thinking when they committed a crime is relevant -- such as, for example, the different degrees of murder, harassment laws, etc. Indeed, intent is an element of almost every crime, and that requires the jury to try to figure out what was in the accused's mind at the time of the commission of the act.
I think this may have been the issue on which I had to undertake my efforts to bring focus to your fervor. Although I've been reading, I haven't had time to comment lately. In any event, your other arguments are worthy of debate -- the points about devaluing certain victims, etc. Still not sure where I come out in the end, as I think there is value in dissuading particular acts, but please drop from your arsenal the "can't know / can't criminalize based on one's thought" line of argument. It just doesn't fly.
Ah, Conscience, good to have you back. I missed typing something and then arguing something completely different with you. But, I’ll entertain your issue-switcharoo nonetheless.
First, people can see for themselves what I chose to bold and highlight from the column. And, people can see for themselves I said it is impossible to prove what someone was thinking and you wrote that courts TRY to prove what someone was thinking.
Now, to your points and adopting your suggestion, I’ll use the basis for 1st degree murder to make my points. For the purpose of this argument, let’s agree the sole distinction is “premeditation” . . . what I think you are implying is “thought” . . . but I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
At the same exact time (give or take a second or two), Smith learns that Jones is a Boston Red Sox fan and Jones stole Smith’s car. One week later, Smith appears to lure Jones to an empty parking lot . . . evidence to the effect was left on an answering machine (an act!) and in an email (an act!). Smith purchased (an act!) a gun one day after learning about Jones two “crimes”. Smith purchased (an act!) bullets for the gun two days after buying the gun. Smith bought 5 gallons of gasoline the morning of the meeting. Smith bought a lighter the morning of the meeting. In the empty lot, Smith shoots Jones to death (accept a single gunshot wound to the head is the cause of death), douses the body with gasoline and sets the body afire (possibly an attempt to destroy evidence). Are you really going to argue that the court needs to know what Smith was thinking when he pulled the trigger or at any time in the last week? Is it necessary to know if Smith was more upset about Jones’s heinous baseball allegiance than the theft of the car in order to prove 1st degree murder? Please! The ACTS are enough to convict Smith of premeditated murder. Society has said planning to kill someone, as evidenced by ACTS, is a more severe crime than not planning. I abide by society’s decision on this point becuase we can prove premeditation as it is defined.
Same exact situation with Jones’s two crimes except Smith learns of them while standing directly opposite Jones. Smith impulsively head butts Jones and Jones dies from the single blow. A lesser crime, I have no problem with that. Society has prescribed penalties for this kind of murder and I abide by society’s decision. Are you really going to argue the penalty should be further distilled based on what foul angered Smith enough to act? Please!
Congress is wasting time trying to codify the criminality of thought; I’ll try to influence society to agree with me as Mr. Jacoby is.
While I was typing all of the above, I had fantasy about a dinner date with Jessica Alba, I thought I should get my oil changed in my car as it’s been 5,000 miles since the last, and I resolved that liberal extremists are the most stupid people I know. Now, I’m positive that NOBODY can prove whether I thought any, all or none of that while I was typing and I’m positive that NOBODY can prove exactly what I was thinking, if at all, while I was typing.
Evidence does exist that I typed all of the above. That I typed this while at work may have consequences. My employer and client may care that I typed and what I typed but not what I was thinking while I typed . . . as it should be.
All of that served to prove my point. All of the "proof"/"evidence" you cite of premeditation is circumstantial evidence of the thought arrived at by logical inferences from Smith's acts. We don't know for certain what his actual thoughts were. In your head butt example, perhaps Smith had been intending to kill Jones all along and was just waiting for an opportunity in which it would appear as if it an impulse and not premeditated, so that he would get a lesser sentence. The circumstantial evidence could be very strong, as in your hypothetical, or weak. The point is that we accept the fact that we allow juries to draw conclusions as to a person's thoughts/intentions based on circumstantial evidence, and affirm or overturn their verdicts on appeal based on whether we think a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the available evidence.
To apply your logic to the situation of your blog note, suppose the Grand Dragon (?) of the Alabama chapter of the KKK appears at the door of an African American college student on the Dean's list who is dating his daughter while carrying a burning cross, Confederate flag, and a copy of Mein Kampf, shouts "I'll never let any n#&&er date my daughter, we never should have let your kind get out of slavery, now I'm going to show you and your kind what happens when you get uppity," and then proceeds to beat the crap out of him. Are you seriously telling me that we can't legitimately conclude that that was a race-based hate crime? Please.
P.S. I have no idea what you're talking about as far as a "switcheroo". I acknowledged that your other arguments -- which I inferred you were making based on the circumstantial evidence that you highlighted statements of others in bold -- were on the right track, but suggested that you not water it down with your other point, which was a direct quote of the most substantive sentence of the 4 sentences from the post that you wrote yourself. How exactly am I pulling a "switcheroo" and arguing "something completely different" by referring to the one independent contribution that you made? My point was you shouldn't water down your adoption of others' salient points by adding something that just doesn't fly.
Conscience, let me address your second paragraph:
I don't care what motivates a man to beat the crap out of another man who wants to date the former's daughter . . . I care that an innocent got the crap beat out of him.
In my world, anyone that answers the door and gets the crap beat out of them by whoever knocked, is entitled to the same justice.
Conscience, addressing your third paragraph: you are not seriously arguing that anyone could EVER discern what you are thinking, are you? If there is one absolute refuge it is my own thoughts. When the Thought Police arrive at my door to afix the Thought Monitor, the first few Officers through the door better be wearing body armor. I absolutely stand by my statement that NO ONE could ever possibly KNOW what anyone else is thinking. "Your new haircut looks just great." "I love the color you painted your house." "I love you, too."
You forgot, "No, that outfit doesn't make you look fat".
Also, ZR you really need to work on your fantasies... the best you could come up with to do with Jessica Alba was to have dinner with her???
newsjunkie,
I was at a client when I posted that. Believe me, dinner was a prelude.
I agree with Zacklyright that crimes are crimes and the "hate" aspect can really get in the way of justice being served.
Case in point- In current news, a case is about to be tried (somewhere in the South- VA?) where a young white couple was brutally murdered and tortured in their home by 4 black men. The torture was so extreme and grotesque, the news media cannot release any details- really too horrific for the general public to hear. The question of whether this is a hate crime is being debated on various news shows. An argument is being made that this was not a hate crime, but that these men were just a gang of thugs who happened to be black. Just think, if the races were reversed and 4 white men burst into the home of a young black couple and did the same exact barbaric things to them, don't you think it would definitely be perceived as a hate-crime? There would be no debate. Why should it not be a hate crime against one set of victims but a slam-dunk hate crime against the other? Can't black people "hate" white people so much they want to kill them? Are preconceived notions of justices and jurors getting in the way of justice? Can hate-crime laws really be fairly administered? I say they can't, and they need to be done away with.
From WATE TV Channel 6 in Knoxville, TN - Four suspects, including a woman arrested in Kentucky Wednesday night, are now facing murder, rape and kidnapping charges in the double slaying of a young Knoxville couple.
But the location of the carjacking that began the series of charges in the investigation and why it happened is still being kept quiet.
The suspects were indicted Thursday in Knox County, separate from the federal charges some of the men already face relating to the carjacking. The rape charges involve both murder victims, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
Lemaricus Davidson faces 46 counts including felony murder, premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape and theft.
Letalvis Cobbins faces 46 counts including 16 counts of felony murder, two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, 20 counts of aggravated rape and two counts of theft.
George Thomas faces 46 counts including 16 counts of felony murder, two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, 20 counts of aggravated rape and two counts of theft.
Vanessa Lynn Coleman, 18, faces 40 counts including 12 counts of felony murder, one count of premeditated murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, 20 counts of aggravated rape and two counts of theft.
Although there were two murder victims in this case, three of the suspects face 16 counts of felony murder each. That's because Davidson, Cobbins Thomas are accused of killing Christian and Newsom while committing other crimes.
And all of those add up. For example, kidnapping a victim and then killing him is one count.
Raping a victim and killing him is counted separately. All three are accused of kidnap, rape, robbery and theft while committing murder.
One suspect charged in the federal case does not face charges in the Knox County indictment. He is Eric Boyd.
The new charges are in a 46-page indictment released Thursday evening at a press conference by the Knox County District Attorney General's Office.
District Attorney General Randy Nichols says he is working closely with the U.S. Attorney's Office since the suspects are charged both locally and federally. He says he doesn't expect any more arrests in this investigation.
When asked if he expected change of venue motions from the defense due to media coverage, Nichols said, "I personally would like the opportunity for 12 citizens of Knox County to hear this evidence and make a decision on the guilt or innocence of these individuals. That is my goal."
Vanessa Coleman hasn't been charged in this investigation until now. She was arrested in Lebanon, Kentucky around 11:30 Wednesday night.
Coleman was arrested on a warrant as a fugitive from justice in another state. She's being held in the Marion County, Kentucky Detention Facility without bond.
An extradition hearing is scheduled for Coleman Friday morning in Kentucky. She could waive the hearing and be brought back to Tennessee immediately. Or she could fight extradition and a hearing would be set.
Coleman is one of three suspects arrested in this case in Lebanon, Kentucky. Letalvis Cobbins and George Thomas were also arrested there.
Coleman was identified but not charged in an affidavit and search warrant released to the public on January 25 as part of federal charges. 6 News did not reveal her identity at that time because she was not charged. (In the affidavit attached to this report, her name is covered.)
The murdered couple was last seen on a date on the night of January 6. They were carjacked by sometime early the next morning.
Christopher Newsom's body was found the next day. It was bound, shot and burned, along the railroad tracks near 9th Ave.
Investigators say Newsom's body smelled of gasoline.
Channon Christian's body was found three days after the couple disappeared. Investigators say it was in a large plastic garbage can in Davidson's house on Chipman Street. Her body was in five separate dark trash bags.
There was evidence that Christian had been bound, physically assaulted and raped. Also, the Knox County medical examiner found apparent carpet fibers in her hair.
Vanessa Coleman told investigators she was at the Chipman Street house while Christian was being held there. She said she witnessed Christian's mouth being cleaned with a bottle of some type of cleaner.
Coleman also told investigators she saw clothes that were stained with blood and smelled of gas being put in the washing machine at the house.
The next step in court process will be an arraignment of the suspects. No specific date has been set but the DA it should occur in the next week to 10 days. (End of news coverage.)
I don't care if the animals killed the couple because the couple was white. I don't care if the animals rape and killed the couple because the couple were Florida Gator fans. I don't care if the animals killed the couple because the couple preferred "cola" flavored slurpees to "cherry". I care that four animals raped and killed two innocents. Do I really want to waste time trying to figure out what was in the head of an animal when he committed this crime? If I can prove he committed this crime, would not the punishment for THESE CRIMES be sufficient punishment? How many times do I need to electrocute an animal if I can prove the animal guilty of these crimes?
ZR, thanks for reproducing this. I was fuzzy on the facts but the general story was the same. Again, I agree with you.
ROC, first, no problem reproducing; I appreciate your participation on this page.
Next, Conscience wrote, "You are just wrong when you say 'it is absolutely impossible to prove what anyone was thinking when they committed a crime.'" and also wrote, "We don't know for certain what his actual thoughts were." I'll let the readers determine if Consciences first quote was more fueled by a desire to disagree with me for the sole purpose of being disagreeable. The second quote could have been written by me . . . oh, it was, several times!
Like I've said before, the points y'all are making re we shouldn't have hate crimes because they devalue the victim are valid and can justify your position, although I see the other side -- need for specific deterence -- as well, and don't know where I fall. My point was that saying you can't criminalize thought is completely inconsistent with innumerable aspects of the criminal law. As for Zack's attempt to say I've been inconsistent, he's wrong again. The issue is the burden of proof -- in our criminal laws, people are accused and convicted every day based on the prosecution having proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt what was in a person's mind. This is true most glaringly for first-degree (i.e., premeditated) murder, as well as for any crime with intent as an element, which may be more than half of our crimes. So, I repeat and re-affirm that "You are just wrong when you say 'it is absolutely impossible to prove what anyone was thinking when they committed a crime.'"
Having said that, there's a difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and epistemological certainty -- i.e., knowing for certain exactly what was in someone's mind. Only God our father can know that. So, I repeat, even when a jury has finds that the prosecutions has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based upon an accused's thoughts of premeditation or intent, it is still true that "We don't know for certain what his actual thoughts were."
So, I fully stand behind both statements; they are not inconsistent. Again, please continue to argue about the propriety of hate crimes based on valid debates about not devaluing victims, but please remove from your arsenal the "can't criminalize thought" fallacy.
P.S. While I do love to disagree with ZR when he is wrong -- and it's not difficult to find such opportunities -- and occasionally like to tweak him for tweaking's sake, this is not one of those times. He's just wrong -- again, just to be clear, not necessarily wrong on the big picture of the validity of hate crime laws (which he keeps going back to), but on the side question of whether one cannot criminalize thought (which he keeps ignoring).
Post a Comment
<< Home