Consider this… the KKK has a legally arranged a public protest for something – whatever, it doesn’t matter. A counter-protest springs up. At some point after the protest, a hooded KKK member is isolated and beaten by one or more non-KKK people. Considering how the current batch of hate crime laws are written, the KKK would be considered a “minority group” by the courts. This means that the people that beat the KKK member would be charged with a hate crime; it would be as if the victim was gay, African-American, or a more “publicize” minority.
Thanks to the hate crime laws, a group that is known for – and proud of – discriminating, terrorizing, and intimidating people of minority groups would now given special protection or at least impact the punishment metted out… how about that for irony?
And people wonder why I think the hate crime laws are ridiculous – like a person that administers a random beating should be less accountable than someone that beats someone specifically.
Not true. Hate crimes cover minority groups. Belonging to an organization such as the KKK does not put you into a protected group.
Depends on what you define as minority *and* the steps you take to address the inequality. Some people think that signing up for a group (i.e. Greenpeace, NRA, KKK) makes them a minority. Or more accurately, by showing how they are or think differently, that that make them a minority. To a large extent, that’s bunk, but in the KKK example above, I’d assume that they were attacked – out of hatred – for who they are, not what they are. And since the majority doesn’t reflect the KKK’s values, a case could be made. All of that without bringing in Freedom of Speech, which would also apply here.
Then there’s correction question of balancing the inequality – I’ve never dug on special treatment for group no matter how big or small.
All in all, though, in a world where people can make a case that music or movies or games *cause* violent behavior, there could easily be a case where you’re teaching people that “you’ll get a lesser punishment if your violent crime is completely random” or at least not based on “known” hatred. Just as weak an argument as the one where parents won’t spank their kids, because if they don’t their kids will never learn to hit or humans. Or something. And that’s the problem. Instead of singling out the hate crime issue, maybe it should have been raised across the board? The whole thing seems weak to me.
No, I’m sayig legally. There are protected groups. KKK, Greenpeace, Bowler’s League are not and will NEVER be, no matter how small they are and how often they are attacked because of membership.
People can say whatever they want about their own minority status, but unless you are on the Supreme Court, it don’t matter.
I wasn’t arguing for or aganst your point on hate crimes. :)
Stab.
:)