The Shotgun Blog
« “I hate the government for making my life absurd.” | Main | Twenty Questions on Obama Care »
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Expanding Definition of Hate
Paging Jennifer Lynch and Barbara Hall.
With economic troubles pushing more people onto the streets in the last few years, law enforcement officials and researchers are seeing a surge in unprovoked attacks against the homeless, and a number of states are considering legislation to treat such assaults as hate crimes.
This October, Maryland will become the first state to expand its hate-crime law to add stiffer penalties for attacks on the homeless.
At least five other states are pondering similar steps, the District of Columbia approved such a measure this week, and a like bill was introduced last week in Congress.
A report due out this weekend from the National Coalition for the Homeless documents a rise in violence over the last decade, with at least 880 unprovoked attacks against the homeless at the hands of nonhomeless people, including 244 fatalities. An advance copy was provided to The New York Times.
Among the oldest of debating cliches is the slippery slope. If we allow this to happen, inevitably this too will come to pass. Like most cliches there is a strong element of the truth.
Posted by Richard Anderson on August 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Hate Laws are code for: "We are great legislators because we pretend to share your pain and we can add redundancies to the statutes for PC flavour-of-the-week crimes".
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-18 10:12:01 AM
This is not really an expansion of the definition of "hate crime". The idea when it was first introduced was that certain violent crimes were being committed where the victim was chosen not because of any particular individual characteristics (eg; personal disputes) of the person and not for profit (eg; robbery), but because of a class or group to which the person belonged or was thought to belong. Attacking a Jewish person just because he is Jewish or a gay person just because he is gay are two typical examples of what was meant, but the originalidea of "hate crime" was not so limited. Yes, victims based on race, sexual orientation, and religion were the ones people advocating "hate crimes" laws were first specifically aiming at protecting, but not because the idea of what counts as a "hate crime" was seen as so limited. It was more an acknowledgement that these were the people being most targetted, so it made sense to aim the protection at them as well. If any other people begin to be targetted by violent crime for similar reasons - whether it be because of their domicilic status or some other group identity reason "hate crime" as originally concieved applies equally. So the definition has not changed at all.
Of course, the question of whether or not counting some crimes as "hate crimes" and punishing them more severely is justified is one that you have not discussed in your post nor have I in my reply. That's an entirely different question. I'm sure the usual angry suspects will come along to rave about it soon enough, however.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-18 10:31:03 AM
So once again we have "authorities" seeing themselves as gods in that they know what was going on in the mind of the attacker better than the attacker probably knew. Maybe they should just make anger a crime along with greed, lust and bullying.
The state needs to remove itself from attempts at psychoanalysing and return to applying the same laws equally to everyone.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-18 10:56:54 AM
Arm the Homeless...and everybody else!
Get the state out of it...they'll only make it worse.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-18 12:10:31 PM
The state needs to remove itself from attempts at psychoanalysing and return to applying the same laws equally to everyone.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-18 10:56:54 AM
Alain, you couldn't be more right about that.
Especially in light of who is now running the CHRC. Except they don't actually have "laws" as guidelines. That's why its called Kangaroo court by anyone who knows anything about it.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-18 3:30:03 PM
Fasct Check -Organized attacks on whites by blacks is very common now. In one attack by a gang on a family on July 4th they were yelling "Its a black world".
Hate crime?
No, apparently blacks cannot comit hate crimes against whites.
They're really thought crimes anyway
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-18 6:38:27 PM
First, it’s unlikely that all these attacks are “unprovoked”; homeless beggars can be pretty damned rude (and even violent). Second, hate crimes proceed from a largely false assumption—that the victim was targeted because of their race, religion, or whatever. That is only partly true.
While occasionally genuine resentment because of perceived shortcomings or transgressions—in the case of illegal aliens, for instance—can trigger violence, in many cases these attacks are the work of assholes who will happily walk it to anyone, and who simply target those least likely to have community support. Witness the school bully who attacks the unpopular nerd instead of the popular jock, even though the latter is a more credible threat to his reputation. The less popular frequently attract this kind of unprovoked aggression not because their attacker hates them, but simply because no one else likes them enough to stand up for them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-18 6:57:50 PM
The aim seems to be the total elimination of human nature. We're hard wired to attack the weak, just as any pack animals. As a society, we've chosen a more compassionate approach, but as times become more difficult, the primal urges begin to surface.
Crimes against the homeless skyrocketed during the Great Depression. Many of the worst attacks were organized, and planned. When the Okies headed for California, many of them met with armed gangs at the border. Local police were often part of the greeting committee. Hobo jungles were regularly raided, with injury and death a common result.
I don't expect police to co-operate on any hate crime charges. They don't like the homeless very much, either.
Posted by: dp | 2009-08-19 7:45:14 AM
Governments always seem to be expanding legislation instead of making it more effective. To me any crime against my life,liberty or property is a form of hate. Why not stick with the basic laws, if a person hits a homeless person its an assault on his life and should be charged accordingly. Why all the extra language in legislation, laws can be pretty basic and still protect every citizen.
Posted by: Calgary Libertarian | 2009-08-19 8:40:27 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.