Uechi-Ryu.com

Ian,

The perps in the dragging death admitted they targetted the vicitm based on his race.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by student:
I am of many, many minds about hate-crime legislation; yet, for the most part, I don't favor it.

I am a Jew. I am in the first generation of my family born in this country. Doubtless I have lost relatives in the Holocaust

(snip)

I have no love whatsoever for White Aryan Resistance, Covenant and Sword of the Lord, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, to use some severe examples. But cutting off their right to speak eventually will have impact on my own right to speak - or yours. Once we start legislating in that direction, I fear the end result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I notice the writings of someone that understands the double-edged sword who's sides are called "liberty" and "freedom" which we all cherish so much.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

If the death penalty for murder does not deter murder, why would we think an enhanced penalty for it being a hate crime (and there's a bizarre thought for you; how do you intend to enhance the death penalty?) would deter murder any better?

I have, after being given time to contemplate during a recouperative period, thought of quite numerous methods that would "enhance the death penalty"... (UN)Fortunately, they all would violate the 8th Amendment in the extreme! I guess I should come clean and admit that I don't agree with the death penalty. Shocked? It's not for the reasons most people have. (Quite frankly there are certain beings that should be removed from ever having the opportunity to hurt anyone ever again... period... but...) After the revelations over the past couple of years of dozens and dozens of people on death row who were wrongly convicted... after the revelations a few years ago that certain prosecutors and "forensics experts" cooked the data to get convictions... knowing how tyrannical governments throughout the last century (and earlier) systematically exterminated dissidents... No, sorry... it's just too easy to abuse.

It's interesting how GW "There ought to be limits to freedom [meaning speech]" Bush plays into several angles of this discussion.

But on the other fronts, I'm still not convinced that hate crimes laws will curtail free speech. Since when is a violent crime a speech issue? How can punishing a violent crime that includes aspects of intimidation really impair the speech of someone who has no illegal intentions toward anyone? Crime is not speech. Law won't blur the issues till we start to believe in expressive violence.

And I personally know it would be easier for some to raise their voices if there were hate crimes protection--and broader civil rights protections.

As far as enforcing, I'm not worried that the prosecution will be burdened. This could be done in two phases--establishment of, say, guilt for an assault, followed by examination of whether this crime fits the hate crimes category. Then there's no higher bar for the prosecution to meet for getting any conviction. It's just a sentancing thing. If the sentance for the crime alone was death, there wouldn't even be a point to pursuing the hate crimes addition.

Re deterrence, ok, if teh death penalty fails to deter, now why have a death penalty at all? (I agree with panther that we shouldn't have one at least until we don't have some states freeing more people than they execute from death row, and probably ever since it costs so darned much, and because I don't think vengeance has a role in our justice system)

Some people will say making hate crimes worse won't be a deterrent and then they'll support the death penalty despite its lack of deterrence. Well if it's only punitive, why can't we apply it more often to crimes we feel are worse?

Or look at Bush--he would have supported a hate crimes bill and wanted the dragging victim's family's support. They wouldn't give it unless he included gays. So he dropped it. So mostly he thinks its more appropriate to terrorize gays than blacks, and his opinions have less to do with deterrence issues than he claims.

Deterrence must not be the point. And this isn't about the cases in which the maximum penalty would be applied without the additional hate crimes designation. This is about the 10 for assault that becomes 15, or other crimes that could suitably have their penalties enhanced. One of these is the gay panic beating where the attacker claims he felt "came on to" somehow justifying a beating and gets a lesser or absent sentance. This method has been used successfully a number of times and was going to be tried by Shepard's killer. Hate crimes laws would help establish a precedent that the law doesn't sanction such defenses or actions.

They also send a signal apart from any deterrence: that the state is out to protect the targets of hate crimes. This helps remove the air of social sanction that guides both hate crimes and the beliefs that lead to them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:
It's interesting how GW "There ought to be limits to freedom [meaning speech]" Bush plays into several angles of this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm interested in a cite for that quote. Not that I don't believe it, just that I'd like to read the whole thing. I have similar quotes with cites for Clinton (take your pick) and Gore, but hadn't seen that quote associated with GWB.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

But on the other fronts, I'm still not convinced that hate crimes laws will curtail free speech.

Its a matter of control. In order to control someone's thoughts, they need to control their speech, and first they need to control their actions. So controlling someone's actions (beyond those which are strictly illegal to begin with) means placing those actions into a "PC" category... and that has already extened beyond actions to speech. That is why there is such an emphasis on "PC" speech.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

And I personally know it would be easier for some to raise their voices if there were hate crimes protection--and broader civil rights protections.

How do hate crimes and broader civil rights protections make it easier for some people to raise their voices? Why are these people silent now? There are already laws against violating a person's civil rights...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

This could be done in two phases--establishment of, say, guilt for an assault, followed by examination of whether this crime fits the hate crimes category. Then there's no higher bar for the prosecution to meet for getting any conviction. It's just a sentancing thing. If the sentance for the crime alone was death, there wouldn't even be a point to pursuing the hate crimes addition.

The penalty for beating up a person is 10 years, but it goes to 15 years if a caucasian person beats up a black person, but remains at 10 years if a black person beats up a caucasian person... why? If a person getting beaten calls for a sentence of 10 years, why should it be changed because of the races of the participants? If the penalty should be 15 years, get the penalty changed... otherwise this is just racism against whites disguised as "hate crime" punishment.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Re deterrence, ok, if teh death penalty fails to deter, now why have a death penalty at all? (I agree with panther that we shouldn't have one at least until we don't have some states freeing more people than they execute from death row, and probably ever since it costs so darned much, and because I don't think vengeance has a role in our justice system)

Forget deterrence... Prison time is to keep the perp off the streets for at least a minimum amount of time to prevent further harm to society. In lesser crimes than murder, the perp is given the opportunity at some later point to rejoin society and "go straight". Fact is, that rarely happens and they usually end up back in, but as long as they don't increase the severity of the crime, our system of justice again allows them the duration of their sentence to contemplate a lifestyle change when released...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Well if it's only punitive, why can't we apply it more often to crimes we feel are worse?

No the death penalty isn't a deterrence... As I've said before, I've seen/heard/read about too many instances of innocent people getting railroaded, too many cases being "fixed", too much evidence being tainted to feel that it should be allowed given the current state of affairs. Personally, the only reason that I don't think the death penalty should be given for cases of rape (and, in fact, that the victim should be able to do the honors), is that then these animals wouldn't stop after the rape, they'd turn it into a murder and get rid of the witness. Then again, there are cases where people have been falsely accused of rape and convicted. Tough decision to be sure, but the incidents of erroneous convictions across the boards has been too much to warrant any trust in the system putting the "correct" person to death.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Deterrence must not be the point.

Have to agree...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Hate crimes laws would help establish a precedent that the law doesn't sanction such defenses or actions.

What happened to "society at large"? Why do we need a special "hate crime law"? If an action which is unacceptable is sanctioned or tolerated by society, a law against it won't correct the problem... if an action is NOT tolerated or sanctioned by society, then there isn't a need for any additional laws. Seems that, in this regard, it is an overall societal attitude that needs to be addressed, not a new legislative bill.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

They also send a signal apart from any deterrence: that the state is out to protect the targets of hate crimes. This helps remove the air of social sanction that guides both hate crimes and the beliefs that lead to them.

Write that entire paragraph again and leave out the word "hate" before crimes... I agree with it completely without the need for the inclusion of the word "hate". By definition, all violent crimes are "hate" crimes which therefore need no additional penalties beyond those deemed appropriate by society.

Thanks Tim,

I'd have preferred the original, but that will do...

A further reassurance of my position that:

It makes little difference to me whether its a republicrat stomping on my 1st and 5th Amendment Rights or a Demopublican stomping on my 2nd and and 4th Amendment Rights... they're both lizards.

Panther, I don't follow you on how punishing crimes intended to intimidate groups will lead to curtailing speech. Do you mean that the idea of disapproving of some aspects of certain crimes could create the impression that the ideas that motivated them are bad, and this might lead to people changing their speech and thought? Because if that's what you mean, I'm for it. Here's how it goes: I don't think groups should be singled out for violence. I think the gov't should be a proponent of that position thru hate crimes laws... because I hope they will lead to a broader public disapproval of prejudice and violence. Hating people would remain legal. But tolerance would be promoted.

Re speaking up: I'll talk about gay issues since I know more about them. Gay people often choose not to speak up because in many or most places, doing so can cost them their jobs, housing, and safety (as well as valued relationships in families, friends, churches whatever). They also have the accurate perception that the government treats them like second class citizens and doubt their access to fair treatment under the law in many cases. If the government takes action to provide for their safety, it may actually work (more safety, less fear associated with speech) and if it does not at least it means the gov't supports them. So people who might otherwise have kept quiet may speak up.

Re: more penalties for white killing blacks than blacks killing whites.... this has NOTHING to do with hate crimes laws. This would just be biased enforcement of a colorblind law. Justice isn't colorblind now. We still make laws and try our best to enforce them. We could say that prohibiting murder would lead to racially biased prosecutions and we'd be right, but we need to try our best instead of giving up.

Perhaps a law is an imperfect way of changing a societal problem. Let's look at forced integration again, however. One could have said, if society wasn't ready, why bother changing things with the law now? Well, because lobbying for and obtaining the law generates a lot of discussion that changes society. The law also in part represents a social judgement. I think it would change attitudes. It's one of the standards people look at that determine how one should act. One of many but still matters. I think YES, there would be less homophobia in the military if the government said it wouldn't discriminate against gays anymore (initially protests would be louder of course). It would be like sending the integration message for WW2: this is the army, we're here to fight, as a team, leave your personal issues at home.

All crimes are not hate crimes. Some are just financial incentive crimes. I just know for a fact that certain murders have a huge chilling effect on target groups when they feel they're being hunted that doesn't happen to anyone in a regular murder. This extra intimidation is what's punished so no one is valued over anyone else and no equal protection under the law is violated.

But if you want to say all crimes are hateful, fine. Now I change my proposed law to Enhanced Punishment for Terrorism Against Groups. This comes into play whenever a crime against a person is motivated by a dislike of that person's identity and a desire to teach a lesson to hi,/her and the others in the group. The questions are all the same even after they're renamed.

I disagree with the whole concept of hate crimes. It violates our Constitutional right of equal protection under the law. A Hate Crime law would also be impossible to apply fairly. Whether or not something is deemed a hate crime is generally determined by mob rule anyway.

I'm interested in a cite for that quote. Not that I don't believe it, just that I'd like to read the whole thing. I have similar quotes with cites for Clinton (take your pick) and Gore, but hadn't seen that quote associated with GWB.

Follow this URL:

http://www.gwbush.com/gwtv/

Click on the link on that page. It's an MP3 file.

"Panther, I don't follow you on how punishing crimes intended to intimidate groups will lead to curtailing speech. Do you mean that the idea of disapproving of some aspects of certain crimes could create the impression that the ideas that motivated them are bad, and this might lead to people changing their speech and thought? "

Punishing people of one characteristic for doing anything offensive to a person of another characteristic, regardless of whether that person's characteristic had anything to do with the altercation, sets up a protected class of citizens, who are given more protection under the law than others.

Instances have been mentioned already where an altercation between people of different characteristics occured, but were not labeled as 'hate crimes', simply because it was not politically correct to do so. 'Hate Crimes' laws will never be applied fairly.

Political correctness in general is bad. In a land that talks so much about free speech, you can be sued for thousands or even millions of dollars, or lose a ton of money in revenue, all by saying something that merely offends someone else. That is rediculous.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

Do you mean that the idea of disapproving of some aspects of certain crimes could create the impression that the ideas that motivated them are bad, and this might lead to people changing their speech and thought?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Hating people would remain legal. But tolerance would be promoted.

And therein lies my problem with it. Let me put it a different way. I want everyone to say whatever hateful thing they have to say about anyone else... if its based on some reason such as, for example, the person had spread a false rumor, then I'll move on. However, (and this is the important one for me) if the person says something which is racist, sexist, intolerant, prejudice, elitist, bigoted, etc... I want to hear it! Yep, that's right I want to hear them say it... that way I know exactly where they stand without question. And with that information, it makes my decision of who to associate with that much easier. Recently a talkshow host out of Boston, who I had pretty much followed, made some very bigoted, elitist comments against a certain group of people. I wasn't the only one to be offended by his comments. He refuses to apologize, I know where he stands. Simple. I can now make the informed choice of not supporting him, his show, his station, or his sponsors any further. See how it works? If he had been limited in what he could say by some "PC" code, I might have never heard his true feelings come out and would have continued on believing that he was an alright person. Now I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Gay people often choose not to speak up because in many or most places, doing so can cost them their jobs, housing, and safety (as well as valued relationships in families, friends, churches whatever). They also have the accurate perception that the government treats them like second class citizens and doubt their access to fair treatment under the law in many cases. If the government takes action to provide for their safety, it may actually work (more safety, less fear associated with speech) and if it does not at least it means the gov't supports them. So people who might otherwise have kept quiet may speak up.

Speaking up for your own Rights is always admirable... and being denied your Rights is always despicable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Re: more penalties for white killing blacks than blacks killing whites.... this has NOTHING to do with hate crimes laws. This would just be biased enforcement of a colorblind law. Justice isn't colorblind now. We still make laws and try our best to enforce them.

Justice is supposed to be blind... period. (that's why she has a little blindfoldon. ) But you're right that there is a bias. Hate crimes laws won't correct that bias, but they do have a strong potential for being erroneously used. Whenever we think of a new law that we would like to have, we should think what it would be like to have our worst enemy in power to enforce it. With that in mind, let's think of a hate crime law and think of a radical homophobic group in power... All of the sudden, those prosecuted under the law are gay and lesbians who have been charged for "hate crimes" of having made advances towards the wrong person... or agys are targeted because of some child molestor who raped hundereds of little league boys (and who happened to be gay). I'm not saying it's right, just pointing out that some laws we may think are good may, in fact, be turned into our worst nightmares.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

We could say that prohibiting murder would lead to racially biased prosecutions and we'd be right, but we need to try our best instead of giving up.

Prosecuting for murder is racially biased?!? Aw, com-on... the fact is that certain groups commit most of the murders statistically. That's not racial bias, that's punishment for the crime.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Perhaps a law is an imperfect way of changing a societal problem.

True. You can't (and shouldn't) legislate morality.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Let's look at forced integration again, however. One could have said, if society wasn't ready, why bother changing things with the law now? Well, because lobbying for and obtaining the law generates a lot of discussion that changes society. The law also in part represents a social judgement. I think it would change attitudes. It's one of the standards people look at that determine how one should act. One of many but still matters.

The difference was that "separate but equal" wasn't. The difference was that there wasn't any counter-example which would show a reverse bias. I think the two examples are apples and oranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I think YES, there would be less homophobia in the military if the government said it wouldn't discriminate against gays anymore (initially protests would be louder of course). It would be like sending the integration message for WW2: this is the army, we're here to fight, as a team, leave your personal issues at home.

What's wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? I don't care whether someone is gay or straight, and it isn't even something I need to know.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

All crimes are not hate crimes. Some are just financial incentive crimes.

That's not what I said. I said, all violent crimes are hate crimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I just know for a fact that certain murders have a huge chilling effect on target groups when they feel they're being hunted that doesn't happen to anyone in a regular murder.

Like the white people who are routinely targeted in the inner cities? yeah, I understand.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

This extra intimidation is what's punished so no one is valued over anyone else and no equal protection under the law is violated.

You don't really believe that a minority on white crime would ever get prosecuted as a "hate crime", do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

But if you want to say all crimes are hateful, fine. Now I change my proposed law to Enhanced Punishment for Terrorism Against Groups. This comes into play whenever a crime against a person is motivated by a dislike of that person's identity and a desire to teach a lesson to hi,/her and the others in the group. The questions are all the same even after they're renamed.

Fine if it's applied equally. I propose the first thing on the agenda is rounding up members of the Black Panthers. (damn, that stinks... it also feels like 1967... hmmmm... J. Edgar would have loved you. )

Now Ian,

On the subject of a "hate crime" law, we may not agree, but on the issue of whether descriminating against certain groups because of race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, geographic origination, religion, is bad, we're in complete agreement.

Ian:
I'm still not clear how the law, as you would like it written, would affect the Bad Guys involved in these two situations:

1. K.K.K. drags black man behind truck after torturing him. Man died.

2. Black gang attacks female runner in New York, beating her, raping her and leaving her barely alive.

If your law were in effect, how would both group of BGs be handled in court?



------------------
GEM

That's easy:

an over-zealous prosecutor would fight to charge the NY gang with committing a hate crime against the woman's gender! See?: if you think about it the right way, everything can qualify under hate-crimes legislation.

Phew lots to comment on:

Jcseer: Hate crimes laws do not punish people for doing anything mean to a special interest group. Robbing a black guy is just robbery. They DO punish for crimes of intimidation and terrorism. And no one is given any more protection under the law. Conceivably someone could be straight-bashed, and certainly whites are attacked for reasons of racism. They'd then have recourse under the laws. Now surely they may need the laws less often. This doesn't mean they are less protected, just that they need less protection.

Re: laws not being enforced perfectly, speeding tickets can be handed out only to certain groups if cops feel like it. Certainly they use(d) racist policies when pulling people over. But we still carry on and have speed limits and allow cops to pull people over. Worst case scenario: white hate crime attackers are punished and the black ones get the usual penalties. Fine, at least we got the white ones, it's better than nothing. I don't doubt for a minute that blacks, because of juror or judge prejudice and less access to good lawyers, serve more time for the same crime as whites, anyway. Sure there are better publicized examples of black jury nullification. But just as ten white teens shot to death at once is bigger news than ten black teens killed one by one in the inner city, the everyday bias against blacks is less covered.

Panther: Hate speech is not prohibited. I want all of it perfectly legal. Hate CRIMES receive additional punishment. I still don't see how hate crimes laws would stifle speech. I also don't see how hate crimes could be used against gays for asking someone out (not a crime) or because some gays are child molesters (the others didn't do anything). The countries laws--whatever they are--are going to be no better than the people that enforce them anyway.

Re murder prosecutions, you can't have thought I have a problem with punishing killers just because proportionately more are black than white. What I meant is I believe blacks and whites who commit the same crime have different amounts of access to good defense lawyers. Who ends up on death row more often?

I think forced desegregation and hate crimes laws would be two examples of legislating morality, making them granny smiths and macintoshs.

Don't ask don't tell--I'll start another thread.

Some violent crimes are motivated by greed. They don't entail terrorism against a group. There ain't no hate involved.

I don't think white people in cities are hunted per se. I'd like to see some murder or theft rate data on that first. I'd also like us not all to give up on the justice system and throw out the idea of hate crimes because the system is supposedly biased against whites. I'm not convinced of that. And re: rounding up the black panthers (no offence Panther), fine--all the ones that committed crimes. And following the law while doing it. And additional punishment for those crimes committed because of racism. Then get their white equivalents. Sounds good to me.

Sensei Mattson:
The dragging death was motivated by racist hatred. The attackers get some sentance and something additional is tacked on for this reason. (If it's death, then death plus 5 years. We already assign sentances of 600 years, and few complain about that.)

The other crime was ruthless and brutal and should receive a stiff sentance on its own right. I don't know of any evidence brought up to show it was a hate crime. Personally I think that rape is about exercising power over the victim and women in general and is in a sense a hate crime for that reason, but it doesn't help to tack on additional time for it. Whatever we decide is the additional punishment for rape over assault can just be built into the rape sentance.

Lee! Easy on your old instructor, please! He taught for free!

Uglyelk: yes they're just as dead, the sentance for that is the same. The additional time is for the TERRORISM! Separate issue!

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited February 27, 2001).]

This is an interesting thread,here's my two cents. Murdered is murdered. The victim of this crime is no less dead regardless of the criminals motivation.The crime was committed by a racist or the crime was committed by a cold calculating non emotional hit man .......the victim is equally dead. The perpetrator of these crimes should be prosecuted equally and sentenced accordingly.

I believe that hate crimes legislation smacks of thought police. This just has too many avenues for abuse.

Judges have some some discretion upon sentencing do they not? This allows them to impose a longer term for a crime that they feel warrants it.

Maybe we should ponder weather the sentences are long enough and why life doesn't mean life?

Laird

> Jcseer: Hate crimes laws do not punish people for doing anything mean to a special interest group.

Think about it. Who's pushing for 'Hate Crimes legislation'?

> Robbing a black guy is just robbery

Unless the robber is white, and then they can tack on HC if they're creative about it.

> And no one is given any more protection under the law.

Christians, Muslims and Buddhists would have more protection than Atheists and Satanists.

> Conceivably someone could be straight-bashed, and certainly whites are attacked for reasons of racism. They'd then have recourse under the laws.

No they wouldn't. Events have already proven that.

> Now surely they may need the laws less often. This doesn't mean they are less protected, just that they need less protection.

That's an assumption on your part. Blacks don't need protection from whites. Blacks kill more blacks than whites do. Jewish people don't need more protection from neo-nazis than they do, say, from drunk drivers.

> Certainly they use(d) racist policies when pulling people over. But we still carry on and have speed limits and allow cops to pull people over.

I think this is an assumption on your part. All I've heard is alot of griping, but no proof.

> Worst case scenario: white hate crime attackers are punished and the black ones get the usual penalties. Fine, at least we got the white ones, it's better than nothing.

Violates white's right to equal protection under the law, which you said wasn't violated, remember?

> Panther: Hate speech is not prohibited.

Any speech not deemed 'appropriate' is prohibited just about anywhere nowadays. Dirty jokes around the water cooler? Gone. Today, buried in the news is the story of a kid who wore a straight pride t-shirt to a gay pride event at his school, and he was told he couldn't wear it, surrounded by others with gay pride t-shirts, buttons, banners and everything else under the sun. Don't tell me it's not prohibited. I ain't buyin'.

> I'd also like us not all to give up on the justice system and throw out the idea of hate crimes because the system is supposedly biased against whites.

The whole idea of America is a place where color, religion or speech does not affect where you are in society. The whole idea is that of a colorblind government. You can't have that with hate crimes. You can't have that with a system that's biased towards unprotected groups. America is not the Land of the Interest Group. It is the Land of the Free. With all the responsibilities and personal hardship that come along.

The argument I'm seeing in the last post could be summed up as (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) The laws won't be implemented fairly
2) There isn't any evidence of a need for hate crimes laws; in fact the law is already biased against whites.

I still don't see what we're going to do about all the laws that potentially could be unfairly implemented. One would have to repeal them all to avoid unfairness. But I'd rather talk about some funny logic:

"Blacks don't need protection from whites. Blacks kill more blacks than whites do."

That's a total nonsequitor. The fact that blacks suffer more murders at hands of people of their own race doesn't mean they can't be injured by racism. Not just by whites. By racist attacks. If you don't think that racism still wounds this country, you've haven't been watching TV or reading papers. When someone is killed because of their race, there is an additional effect of terrorism on that race's members. I think that's an established fact. Ask a black person. Ask a gay person whether the killing of a gay person at random or executed for being in line at a gay club would scare him or her more. The additional punishment is for this terrorism. Search history for a country that fell apart because of... drunk drivers. Now look for one that fell apart because of ethnic hatred. Germany. Yugoslavia. Rawanda. It's somewhat easier. A murder based on hate DOES cause more trouble than a random one.

I believe the police (in NJ) have admitted to using racial profiling to decide whom they will pull over. I don't think this is a matter of dispute any more. Same applies to checks at airports. Hispanics were being stopped more than whites because while more traffickers were actually white, proportionately more hispanics than whites were smuggling. Makes it inconvenient to be a hispanic businessman.

Re: getting the white guys only: To me, equal protection doesn't mean equal freedom to commit crime. I don't see a theoretical failure to prosecute blacks for something whites are prosecuted for as evidence that a bunch of whites should be set free with a pat on the back. Rather I see it as a reason to step up enforcement against the blacks too.

Re kid's speech prohibited at school: who was it that told me the military isn't a place where you can expect free speech? Isn't a school the same deal, where a principle can exercise control over what messages are sent by clothing to promote a good environment for learning? Aside from that, isn't it speech when a bunch of people surround someone wearing a negative message and promote their own? Do you distinguish between discouraged and prohibited?

"The whole idea of America is a place where color, religion or speech does not affect where you are in society" How I wish we were there. Was it Marshall that wrote in the decision in Brown that "do get beyond race, we must first take account of race?"


[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 01, 2001).]