Why Are Hate Crime Laws Illegal?
The very basis of “Hate Crimes” legislation is so fundamentally flawed that any first year law students, petty criminal who has ever been arrested, or common citizen who takes a moment to look at things intellectually and by the book rather than emotionally, knows it can not possibly be constitutional in any shape, manner or form.
To actually have the law is silly enough but to have it, declare it constitutional, use it and have people praise it is both sad and frightening. It is sad because people actually believe it is good and lawful, and frightening because we the people encourage the government to intrude even further and deeper into our minds and our lives.
In days of old when the Justice System was actually more concerned with justice than it was with conviction rates and political gain, there was a very common saying. It was bantered about so freely and used so frequently that it became “cliche” in every sense of the word.
Still, just because something is “cute” or even cliche does not mean it is not true. In this particular case, “Any first year law student knows you cannot prove intent!” or more simply, “you cannot prove intent” is the phrase being referred to.
It remains true no matter how often it is used and it remains true that this is one of the first things taught in law school the last time I had an opportunity to speak with a law professor anyhow. Granted, that was some decades back as I was preparing to take the BAR exam in Nevada.
Yet somehow or another, a law was passed which professes to be able to do just that.
Any heinous crime becomes a “Hate Crime” when the “intent” was motivated by race, sexuality or whatever other cause du jour may be in vogue at the time. At least in such cases where the victim was one of the many “oppressed victim class” of citizens.
Every one of us has committed a crime somewhere along the line ... whether it was speeding or not disposing of your CFL bulbs in a proper and legal fashion. I have never personally been a criminal, thus I do not speak from first hand experience in that regard. I have been a soldier however, and I have been a fighter and I have been in many tense situations.
The point is, I am well aware of what happens when people are stretched to or pushed over the “breaking point”.
There is another old saying that seems appropriate here. “Fight or Flight mode”.
When most people become aware that a nasty situation is not only unavoidable but already upon them ... “in their face” if you will, they tend to go into fight or flight mode. This is a very normal physiological reaction caused by the adrenal glands kicking into overdrive and the individual generally experiences a very intense Adrenalin rush.
This is part of one of our most basic of all instincts that has allowed us to survive as a species. There is nothing unnatural or unhealthy at all about it. It remains a trait in our genes because it is necessary for the survival of any species.
Granted, there are exceptions with those people who become almost or even completely catatonic in such situations but if they get into more than one or two, old Darwin generally has his way with them and removes them from the equation quickly and efficiently.
Our ability to manipulate our environment has caused us to lose many physiological traits and characteristics that are necessary for survival in the wild, so granted, it is theoretically at least, likely that there are more people like this these days than there were in the more “savage” days of human growth and development.
Still, anyone with a will to survive will get this rush.
Ask the Gramma who lifted up the big car to get her grandchild out.
Ask the crippled fat woman who ran out in front of moving traffic not only quick enough to save her child but quick enough to survive herself.
Ask any soldier or cop who has ever been in a firefight.
The will to survive often takes over completely and there are many recorded instances when the person involved has absolutely no recollection of what has happened. They could be shown videotape of the moment in question and not remember one single moment of it still.
While people who are frequently in such situations do tend to grow accustomed to it, those people who only experience it once or twice in their life generally find no need to grow accustomed to it.
Thus it is that some of these people have no real recollection once they have regained conscious control of their senses again.
I bring this up because ... I suspect at least ... most criminals ... or many of them anyhow ... are a bit jacked up when they commit their crimes.
The actual confrontation with another individual would almost inevitably lead to a commencement of the Fight or Flight mode, though depending on the situation, and seemingly if they are being tried for a hate crime, they chose to fight rather than to take flight.
In some instances, they may be goaded on by “friends” or peers. It is very possible that some of these people are simply so jacked up on adrenalin that they do things that they would never do under “normal” circumstances.
How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their motives were based on hate for an individual and they were not simply taking their frustrations out on the victim of the moment? Being able to prove intent is akin to being able to ascertain “beyond any shadow of a doubt” or “beyond any reasonable doubt” what a person was thinking when the crime took place. “Can you say ‘Thought Crimes’ boys and girls? I thought you could!”
The fact that a heinous crime is being/was committed speaks loud enough on its own.
Does anybody really care what the motivation is?
If someone drags someone I love around chained behind a car or a truck, I care about one thing and one thing only.
I do not care what their motivation was.
I do not think that any heinous crime should go unpunished when the perpetrator is caught, tried, and convicted beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.
There are no extenuating circumstances that can make an already heinous crime worthy of any more punishment. If the perpetrator is caught, tried and convicted, punish them to the fullest extent of the Law. Period. I care about the person(s) who committed that crime being punished to the fullest extent of the law.
The law and our judicial system need to focus on justice, not on intent or possible thought crimes.
If someone breaks into your home and declares their intention to harm you and/or your family, do you stop to think about what their motivation may be? What color they are? What their childhood was like? Why they turned to a life of crime?
Or maybe, just maybe, do you allow your instinct for survival to take over and remove the perpetrator from the equation before they can bring harm to you and/or your family?
Personally, I do not care who or what they are, I am going to do everything within my power to remove that person from the face of this planet ... when it is all said and done, I will call the police and inform them of what happened but there is no way I am going to stand idly by and watch or dial 911 when I can dial five rounds into the cylinder of my revolver.
I certainly do not care about anything they say unless they are begging and pleading for help ... and they better damn well be outside of my home if that is the case.
There is nothing that they could do or say to make me feel better about them attempting to harm me or my family and nothing that they could do or say to make me fight harder to remove them from life’s equation ... I am going to take them out regardless.
The whole idea that some epithet or some slur may make the entire ordeal worse is patently absurd on the surface ... but when you go a bit deeper, this Hate Crimes Legislation becomes even more frightening on an entirely different level.
The fact that people actually support ... much less praise such laws, is in itself, something of major concern to me and should be a worry for all of us.
What are intentions other than thoughts and feelings?
Now it is easy to crack jokes about anything to do with “Thought Police”. In most cases, it may actually be reasonable to question the sanity of anyone who even talks about the thought police with the slightest bit of seriousness. Still, is that not exactly what the Judicial System is doing here already?
Are they not already ... not only policing, but actually JUDGING and sentencing individuals based largely on their (perceived) thoughts?
Is “Hate” now something tangible that can be proven or dis-proven beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt?
When the sentencing is handed down, is there not an “additional” penalty if the heinous crime in question is considered to be a “hate crime” based on what the judicial system supposes were the thoughts and intentions of the perpetrator?
If a jury is handing down sentencing, are they asked to give special consideration to the “hate” involved?
If a judge is passing down sentence, is he or she going to give special attention to what the perpetrator was thinking or feeling?
The very idea that there should be any arbitrary discretion or consideration for harsher punishment based solely on what someone or something proposes, supposes or believes that somebody else was thinking or feeling is downright frightening.
Now I was told I was crazy when the Supreme Court was finally allowed to decide what cases it would or would not hear when I was in Junior High School. My “Social Studies” teacher claimed that such politics were beyond the reach of the courts and that it would never transpire that way.
People “in the know” considered my idea that they would be selective based on political consideration or expediency nearly all mocked me ... though some did reluctantly admit that it was at least viable ... though certainly not likely.
Yet here we are.
Already these “hate” crimes have been limited to certain classes of victims.
When four black youths attack and kill two couples ... well one lady did survive but barely ... all the while yelling racial epithets, it is “merely” a heinous crime.
When four white youths attack and kill a gay person or a black person, the entire thought process of these criminals is brought into question and the “hate” is added to the charge.
If you are selected for jury duty and the victim has allegedly attacked someone, you may be shocked and appalled but still able to hear their testimony with an open mind.
However, if you are selected to be on the trial of someone charged with a “Hate Crime”, does not the charge alone create a sense of unease in your mind about the innocence of the alleged perpetrator?
The federal government\s war on our liberties ... likely their only successful domestic war ... is a slow and patient encroachment that starts very small and subtle so that critics can be ridiculed into silence. By the time the full implication of what has been done is apparent to the masses, people have been indoctrinated ... become accustomed to it and pay very little attention to it.
Such was the case with the tobacco taxes. Yet still, how much of the additional tax on tobacco and alcohol has ever been used for its intended purpose to help we the people? How much money has it saved you personally as it was told to us in the beginning it would?
I would venture to say that nobody has saved anything and that those taxes simply went to reduce ... or at least to reduce ever so slightly the debt of ... the federal government budget. Add to that the entirely new criminal classes, the additional incomes generated by fines and it becomes a bit clearer that all of it was little more than a ploy to tax people and create a revenue stream that never needed to be accounted for.
Hate Crimes Legislation is just another way to create an even larger criminal class, control the people ... and somewhere along the way ... likely before too long, the federal government will find some way to turn it into a revenue generating source.
Let us know what you think please!