From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:20:04 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>sm> Suzanne Morine

>sm> As for society spurning group hates, I meant how all of us must recognise
>    our small part in the marginalizing of groups, a la the south after the
>    civil war, a la germany in the '30's.

>  Half my ancestors weren't even in the US until after 1900, and I have never
>  been a citizen of Germany. Why am *I* in some "small part" responsible for
>  actions that occurred before I was born?

>sm> How, as a society, we've decided to never forget that societies must be
>    responsible for what they as a group do to sub-groups.

>  Societies aren't responsible, individuals are.

Oh, Please!  *All* of *my* ancestors weren't in the US before 1900 and I am
not German.  This doesn't make what happened in the south and Germany
irrelevant to my life and thinking.

If you go back to Germany in the 30's, you can't find people to pin all the
blame on.  Sure, Hitler, Himmler(sp?).  The German soldiers who carried out
the death marches, etc. told people afterward that "I was just following
orders."  Were they to blame?  The train conductor who shipped loads of
people crammed into boxcars had a hand, too.  The train scheduler who knew
very well what the "shipments" were.  The people in the fields where the
trains went through (and made brief stops) who sold food to the Jews for
jewelry but didn't help them.  The people who didn't help/hide their Jewish
neighbors.  Where to pin *all* of the blame?

Sure, this is an extreme example: people being systematically eliminated.
The situation of the old south elaborates the illustration.  Remarks, cross
burnings, lynchings.  People weren't systematically eliminated but their
lives were systematically (in a subconscious sort of way) ruined.

The lesson I come out with from looking at such phonomenon is that such
people as the Grand Wizards of the KKK and Hitler, Himmler, etc. were
certainly to blame, but there was much more going on.  Attitudes which
said that members of group X are "not fully human" play a very big hand.
It seems to me that collective actions are signifigant.  We as a society
can try to monitor what these attitudes and collective actions are.
Education and speaking out are important, but in a difficult situation
you will want to have that "big stick" of the law to enforce fairness
for people.

>sm> I see such things as anti-discrimination laws, and hate crime laws, as
>    tools to deter people's blatantly marginalizing people (i.e. saying "you're
>    fired because you're a queer," or repeatedly egging cars outside of a cer-
>    tain meeting place).

>  Should the infamous Shawn Slater be charged with hate crimes? He stood at the
>  Capitol building and spewed anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Semitic and a whole
>  bunch more anti-X slogans and phrases. A more clear case of a "hate crime"
>  would be difficult to find. Why hasn't he been charged with anything?

He was only spreading *ideas*, he wasn't *doing* anything.  He has free
speech just like you and me.

You say it'd be difficult to come up with a more clear case of a "hate
crime."  But there's no crime there!  In another post, I said that you
shouldn't be charged with hating someone, that such motivation/intent
would only *increase* the seriousness of an existing crime.  To state
my current view:

  It seems to me that a "hate crime" designator for increasing the
  seriousness of a given instance of crime could be useful.  Like any
  such designator, you'd have to show in court, beyond a reasonable
  doubt, that the intent was to play a hand in marginalizing a group.
  I don't see a use for having an official list of marginalized groups,
  but maybe there's some legal mumblemumble reason for such a list - I
  don't know.

>  Also, what about the young black men who kicked and beat Colleen Kelly, al-
>  most to death? In fact, one of the men has been charged with attempted mur-
>  der. Apparently they also shouted racial epithets at Kelly. Should they al-
>  so be charged with hate crimes?

Using my imaginary(?) definition of a "hate crime" distinction, the
the severity of the crime would be increased.  A court would have to show
that he intended to play a hand in marginalizing her group (he really didn't
need to increase his impact on her any more - he was really stomping on her
- and was perhaps really playing on the minds of the by-standers).  Note
that if his statements were not very pointed the prosecution might not even
bother with trying to prove this distinction.  Proving something like that
beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult - just used for the most blatant
of cases.

>sm> If better tools for that deterrent are found, we would use them.

>  Easy. Use better ideas to battle idiots like Slater. Don't *ever* make the
>  mistake of letting the State decide which ideas are too dangerous to be al-
>  lowed. Doing so just might result in *your* ideas being illegal.

Absolutely use education/opinions, but don't at the same time take away the
"big stick" of laws against blatantly biased crimes.  The line of where 
something is "blatant" is debatable, but perhaps the proving beyond a
reasonable doubt in court provides a good enough line.

Note: I never said to make any *ideas* illegal.

--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil.  If
--they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men,
--the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."     Helen Keller