[in the comments section of my previous post, reader judi asked me for an explanation of the hate crimes legislation which, having slam-dunked its way through our house of representatives, is currently in the process of being rubber-stamped through the senate towards its inevitable obama signage-into-law.
the following is my answer to her question.]
basically, judi, it goes like this: for the past 233 years in america, you fucked somebody up, you did time.
under this bill? let's say you fuck somebody up because they're gay (or a member of any number of other protected minorities covered by said bill), you're gonna do time plus several extra years because, since your crime was motivated by hate, you're obviously an extra-bad person and therefore deserving of far more punishment than had you beat the guy up merely because he dissed your girlfriend or spilled a drink on you or something else perfectly reasonable like that.
but what if it's not so clear-cut? what if you maintain you fucked him up for reasons totally unrelated to his being gay? well, in the good old days, it wouldn't matter why you did it; all the court would care about is if you did it or not.
but not anymore, judi. in this brave new post-"hate crimes" world, the mere fact of your crime won't matter nearly so much as WHY you did the crime--never mind that the object of your rage would still be a puddle of bloody goo on the sidewalk either way, the law will now tell us that, if the victim happens to find himself in a class of citizen protected by this new hate-crimes statute, then he's far more injured--and thus, you're far more guilty--than had he not been so protected.
but that's ok, because homophobes are worse than bad, and they need an extra-special incentive like a "hate crimes" law to keep them from beating up on poor, hapless faggots, right?
thing that kills me is, the folks arguing this position are usually the same ones who can reliably be counted upon to scornfully laugh at the "death penalty as deterrent" folks.
[imagine the following scenario:
billy bob: "hey bobby joe, let's grab our baseball bats and go out and fuck us up some faggots, ok?"
bobby joe: "well, billy bob, as much as i love to fuck me up some faggots, that new extra-added "hate crimes" enhancement on top of the ordinary ol' assault-and-battery makes me think twice, so maybe we better not."
because that's the way it'll work, right?
yeah, right.]
of course, being as smart as i know you are, judi, i'm sure you will immediately see the other problem with this new order of things.
because if you're anything like me, you might believe that the objective, material and provable evidence of what you actually DID should be what matters in a court of law, rather than the subjective supposition of the thoughts which were presumably in your head AS you did what you did.
but in the end, no worries--the thought police will sort it all out for us and all will be well, right?
yeah, right.
* * * * *
had you asked almost any fag in america, judi, they'd have told you this "hate crimes" law is basically the greatest thing since sliced bread, since it's gonna save us all from homophobic hate and all.
but you? you had to ask me.
[next: the problem with creating protected classes in america--and boy, do i have a few things to say about that]
4 comments:
thank you for answering my question.
of course i had to ask you since you. my father hasn't talked to me yet, and i'll bet anything he's for this hate-crimes crap.
so lemme make sure i'm understanding this:
scenario 1: i get beaten to a pulp. i happen to be jewish. therefore this is a hate crime.
scenario 2: some skinhead punk neo-nazi aryian nation fucker beats the snot outta me for nothing more than my being jewish.
...and they're both hate crimes?
judi: actually, no--scenario 1 would not be a hate crime under the new law (i can now see why you might've thought so, tho--i need to do a little rewrite).
unless, of course--angry and seeking vengeance--you decided to make it a hate crime yourself by lying to the investigating officers and telling 'em that the guy kept screaming, "die, jew bitch" at you while he was beating you.
but we don't have to worry about such a well-intentioned law being misused in that way, because nobody would ever do something like that, right?
yeah, right.
oh, and once we're settled into this new groove, you just watch how fast the definition of "hate crime" grows to include "hate speech."
i'm tellin ya, we're opening up an orwellian-nightmare can o' worms with this one.
i'm still confused. i'm not being purposely obtuse, and am aware that this falls under 'very bad things that congress does', but i still don't quite know why.
disregard my previous comment...i just got off the phone with my dad and between your explanation and his, it makes complete and utter sense as to why this 'hate crime thing' is so appalling.
ditto for hate speech.
Post a Comment