Just a
stunning post from a law professor.
I don't really like the "hate crime" concept anyway. Murder is murder either way.
This sounds exactly like the
rhetoric that racist Southerners used when they blocked anti-lynching legislation.
The State laws, however, in every State of the Union are adequate to cover the question of lynching, and particularly they are in the South. We have murder laws in every State in the Union, and lynching is murder. A person can be and should be convicted of murder when he participates in a lynch job...And the few cases that do occur, most of them are not what most people think about when they think of lynchings. They are just murder. -- Rep. Charles Bennett, (D-FL) 1948
6 comments:
OK, Cincy, but "murder is murder" isn't an "intellectual" argument, and it's exactly what Southern lawmakers said about the anti-lynching laws. "We don't need them because murder is murder."
Personally I think it's a no-brainer to disproportionally punish hate crimes. For one thing, they have immediate and wide-ranging consequences beyond those of a 'pedestrian' murder. For another, racism is very damaging to socety and should be strongly discouraged.
But that's hate crimes; it's a serious discussion for serious people.
"Murder is murder"? When Hammurabi said "an eye for an eye" it was a good development, but we've improved it since. Not all murders are equal, so we shouldn't treat them as such. We left "murder is murder" by the wayside a long time ago. I have to agree with blue texan on this one.
I'm as opposed as anyone to Putz's putzing putziness, but the mere phrase "Hate Crime" should chill the blood of ever lover of liberty.
I realize I'm arguing semantics here, but I'd be much more comfortable punishing a "racially motivated murder" with extra severity than I would a "hate crime". My problem with that phrase is that it's so vague and ambiguous that it's meaning can drift and mutate, with ominous consequences.
Chris, thanks for the post. But Putz isn't talking about the name -- he's talking about the concept. And his glib, "murder is murder" attitude is identical to racist justifications against antilynching laws.
Fine, then, decry the whole notion of "hate crimes". It's just another way of punishing someone for what they were thinking. I find that very scary.
Interesting responses to this. I don't see how discouraging racially-motivated attacks on people is inhibiting freedom of thought.
Again, to those who oppose hate crime legislation, what about antilynching laws? Would you oppose those too, because "murder is murder"?
Or are you saying that the Jim Crow South was a special exception?
Post a Comment