From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.african.american]  Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.african.american
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:19:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject:  Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.222455.9880@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.131307.8755@gdstech.grumman.com>  
david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug27.194232.18207@m.cs.uiuc.edu>  
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >>Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
> >>Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.clari.local.ohio and
> >>clari.news.groups.jews.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
> >>info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
> >>
> >>	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the  
state's
> >>ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
> >>infringement of the right of free speech.
> 
> [ Article text elided. ]
> 
> >>	The Ohio Supreme Court, in its decision, apparently disagreed.
> >>	``Enhancing a penalty because of the motive ... punishes a  
person's
> >>thought, rather than the person's act or criminal intent,'' the court
> >>said in an opinion written by sssociate justice Herbert Brown.
> >
> >Someone here at my job made the same assertion, and therefore
> >concluded that burning a cross on a Black person's lawn should not be
> >considered a hate crime, but an act of free speech protected by the
> >constitution and further the perpetrators should not be charged with
> >anything more than property damage.
> >
> >So I asked him, "Do you see a difference between property damage and
> >this expression of free speech."
> >
> >"No."
> >
> >"What is the difference between manslaughter and murder?", I asked.
> >
> >"I don't know?"
> >
> >"Intent.  It is the intent that decides whether or not the accused
> >will spend ten years in prison or fifty or even further receive the
> >death penalty.  It is the intent that makes all the difference.  There
> >is a difference between scrawling ''Joanie loves Chachi'' on a
> >deli-owners wall and scrawling ''Niggers Go Home!''."
> 
> You are correct that the difference between manslaughter and murder is
> intent. However, if I correctly understand your larger position, you  
have
> improperly conflated intent and motivation.
> 
> If I kill my brother accidentally but negligently, that's manslaughter  
(no
> intent to commit murder). If I plan his murder in advance (intent to
> commit crime), that's first-degree murder. My *reasons* for killing him
> are motivation -- but if I kill him because I hate him, it's  
first-degree
> murder, and if I kill him because I love him, it's first-degree murder.
> Motivation is irrelevant to the law, and it is motivation that "hate
> crime" statutes seek to punish.
> 
     The issue of intent vs. motivation was basically the argument used by  
the Wisconsin Supreme Court this past June when they ruled that  
Wisconsin's hate-crime statue was unconstitutional. The circumstances of  
the test case were as follows:

     About two years ago, several black teenagers (16-18 years old) in  
Madison got together and rented the movie "Mississippi Burning". They took  
it to the home of one of the teenagers and watched it while consuming a  
fair quantity of beer. After the movie was over, these guys were MAJOR  
PISSED OFF, and they agreed among themselves that it was time for a little  
payback. So they went out to one of the main streets in Madison, selected  
a young white guy as a target, and beat the shit out of him. The beating  
was so serious that the guy suffered some permanent neurological damage.  
The "leader" of the group received 2 years for aggravated assault and  
battery and an additional 5 years because the crime was  
racially-motivated, or a hate-crime. The others received 2 years for the  
assault and battery charge. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the  
conviction on the leader, saying that no person can be punished for his or  
her thoughts, because "thought", like "speech", is protected by the First  
Amendment. A person can only be punished for an action, and any  
modifications wrt the type of punishment may only take "intent" into  
account, not "motivation". So, in this case, the teenagers' "intent" was  
to beat the shit out of a person, and this is the crime for which they  
should have been prosecuted. Their "motive", i.e. that they wanted to beat  
the shit out of a person because that person was white, is irrelevant. The  
state, according to the Court, has no right to distinguish between a crime  
motivated by racial-hatred as opposed to the same crime motivated by  
robbery or jealousy. The same penalty should apply in each case. If the  
white victime feels that the state's punishment is inadequate, he is free  
to pursue a civil suit against his attackers. 
 
> --
> Scott Maxwell (Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)
> --

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5643 alt.privacy:1785 talk.politics.misc:43509 soc.culture.usa:7091