Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Oct. 24, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Thought police

More feel-good 'hate crime' legislation from Congress

On Thursday, Congress gave final approval and sent to President Obama legislation to add gays to the list of groups covered by U.S. hate-crime laws.

The new expansion of the law would also give the U.S. Justice Department expanded authority to prosecute such crimes when local authorities don't act.

Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...
  • LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada




    • "Hate crimes affect not just the victim -- they victimize the entire community," said Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat. "We cannot allow our communities to be terrorized by hatred and violence."

    In fact, it appears federal lawmakers can't do much about it -- except to load up the statutes with more feel-good verbiage.

    "Hate crimes are wrong and that's why they are already illegal," explained Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican. "There's no such thing as a criminal thought -- only criminal acts. Once we endorse the concept of a thought crime, where will we draw the line?"

    Indeed, it's hard to imagine anyone being beaten or murdered out of an excess of respect or affection. Prosecutors, judges and juries already have some leeway to seek and impose harsher punishments on those whose crimes they find particularly heinous -- as well they should. But the idea that some groups deserve more legal protection than others, depending on the assailant's intent, asks the aforementioned prosecutors, judges and juries to indulge in mind-reading.

    It's relatively "OK" to bash someone over the head and steal their last dime if the assailant doesn't voice any knowledge or concern about his victim's race, religion or sexual orientation?

    The question here is not whether those with evil intent should be able to physically harm or commit other crimes against gays or cross-dressers -- or members of any other minority -- with impunity. Of course they should not. The problem comes with the unintended consequences of attempting to afford more protection of law to some groups than to others.

    As columnist Richard Cohen of The Washington Post notes: "I doubt that any group of drunken toughs is going to hesitate in their pummeling of a gay individual or an African American or a Jew on account of it being a hate crime. If they are not already deterred by the conventional penalties -- prison, etc. -- then why would additional penalties deter them? And if, in fact, they kept their mouths shut, refrained from the N-word or the F-word or the K-word ... then they would not be accused of hate -- merely of murder or some such trifle."

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 39 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall wrote on October 25, 2009 02:48 PM: My friend Joe C,
    Of course I would NEVER want to see ANTBODY prosecuted for verbalizing their hatred or contempt.
    And I fully believe ALL crimes are hate crimes....nobody ever mugged anybody out of love.
    BUT...while hate crimes laws are ALREADY on the books, it seems ludicrous NOT to expand them to include a minority population (GLBT) which is ranked amongst the highest group of targeted hate...and if it could be proven that an elderly white couple was "thugged" only because they were white, I fully agree...that is a hate crime, too.
    Folks like Robert and I can be followed out of a restaurant, beaten, and our wallets still left in our pockets. That is not a mugging or robbery. Tha is a crime of hate.
    What the real issue here is, I will aknowledge, is that for the first time GLBT citizns are being recognized as a protected class by the federal government. This flies in the face of some people who, for their own moral beliefs, think that this is a slippery slope to broader acceptance of gays and lesbians as a whole. Perhaps it is. I hope it is.
    That is why the RJ's editorial stance on this issue surprised me. To their credit they have been true libertarians and conservative on these issues. They have opposed Question 2 and were wise to support "domestic partnerships".
    Seeing people beaten and assaulted (NOT taunted), is a crime that should merit local law enforcment getting the weight of the feds involved IF they can't (and in some states, WON'T) capture and prosecute these thugs.
    Sincerly,
    Stuart & Robert


    Paul wrote on October 24, 2009 11:58 PM: My question is why do we have the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, if nobody actually believes in them?


    Paul wrote on October 24, 2009 11:55 PM: United Nations Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19: "Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."


    Paul wrote on October 24, 2009 11:46 PM: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


    Paul wrote on October 24, 2009 11:35 PM: Let's see ... the concept of "hate crimes" leads to "hate-speech crimes" that leads to "hate-thought crimes" ...


    Joe C wrote on October 24, 2009 09:27 PM: To Stuart & Robert,
    So would you have had them arrested for calling you f****s, did they stalk you or threaten you?
    Why would you have more rights to protection than lets say a white couple if it was lets say minority thug calling them whitey b*t*hes and giving them hateful looks.

    Certain behaviors or threatening actions can be considered battery but name calling names and dirty looks, how do you decide when language or eye mugging someone becomes a hate crime?

    Sorry that you went through some scary moments but these laws do nothing and in the end could make things worse. Perhaps you feel you have had enough but people do not for whatever reasons, religion, personal, have to except you lifestyle. If they threaten or harm you that’s a crime, calling you names shouldn’t be.
    Will there be a time disagreeing with your lifestyle becomes a crime?


    Vegas Quixote wrote on October 24, 2009 06:53 PM: @Sam T. You're right. Behavioral surveillance has been used for decades--in the casinos. People think they're in Vegas because they can be free, while they are monitored 24/7.


    Landon Taylor wrote on October 24, 2009 06:26 PM: Nevada woman convicted in kidnap stunt near school!! I was appalled at the stipidity of any jury that would ignore the obvious problem here - THE SCHOOL BOARD NOT PROTECTING ANY KIDS!! I am a 65 year old grandfather and Ms Clemont should be given a MEDAL and entire school board rode out of town on a rail including the stupid jury. Judge should have thrown case out before it even came into court in the first place. I wish I could have been on the KANGEROO COURT JURY, Ms Clemont would have gotten monetary damages from each and every school board member for failure to fullfill duties and false arrest or the jury would still be deadlocked not guilty!!! THIS IS AN EMBARRASSEMENT TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM, MUST LESS THE JUDGE THAT EVEN ACCEPTED THE JURY VERDICT AND DID NOT OVER RULE IT AND THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW AND CHASTIZE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.
    A DEMOCRAT FROM TENNESSEE THAT IS MAD!!!


    Quibble wrote on October 24, 2009 06:09 PM: The Alaska Senate approved and sent to the House a bill that would mandate prosecution of youths as adults for felony hate crimes.

    SB 169 applies to minors over the age of 16. The Senate passed a similar bill last year that died in the House.

    [2002]

    Must be a bunch of socialists up there in red neck land?


    Truth wrote on October 24, 2009 06:06 PM: Alaska Hate Crimes Law
    Alaska hate crimes law covers race, sex, color, creed, physical or mental disability, ancestry or national origin. Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155 (2001).

    Gee, who knew Alaska was all liberal and such?!


    LOL!


    Read All Comments