LA Sheriff proposes registering/listing those convicted of a hate crime

[Mairead]

In another thread, since locked, it was alleged by a rightwing hate site that the LA Sheriff, Lee Baca, proposed to ask that white supremicists be forced to register and be listed as sex offenders are.

The very idea took my breath away.

After some work, I tracked down what apparently was the original story at the LA Daily News ( http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2798647,00.html ) The sheriff is quoted as say white supremacists want monitoring...but the statement comes immediately after a paragraph saying he plans to ask the legislature for a law forcing those convicted of a hate-crime to register and be listed, so I don't feel confident that I understand exactly what it is that he is proposing.

The idea of registering people for their political views is so evocative of Nazi Germany that it's understandable why people in the now-locked thread flipped out.

But the idea of listing people who have (presumably) 'paid their debt to society' doesn't sit well with me either. We have data to say that certain categories of sex offender are compulsively recidivist, so okay, there's maybe some justification (enough?) for listing former sex-offenders...but where does the justification come from in the case of violent bigots?

[jobycom]

1. We should just start branding their crime on their forehead

and requiring them to wear crew cuts so we can see the brand. But why stop at sex offenders, or hate criminals. Let's brand all criminals. We could have a color coded warning system, even, so that a red brand denotes a violent crime, a yellow brand a property crime. We can brand speeders, tax cheats. Hell, let's make it really easy, and brand everyone, so we will know who has not committed a crime, too. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, wouldn't you be proud to display it?

And that's just the start. I think we could use other brands, as well, to really help us with our first impressions of people. If you are married, you get branded. A divorce is another brand. We can even brand political affiliations, which should help at the polls. Our faces could be roadmaps to our every public action. Things would be much safer then.

I'm with you, Maired. Even sex crime registration smacks too much of Nazi Germany for my blood. The very few lives such registration saves doesn't seem worth the loss of rights for people who have already served their time. I mean, if the person is still a threat to society, why are they letting them out in the first place? if they are no longer a threat, then they should be free after having served their sentence.

[bryant69]

2. Branding that many people would be far to expensive

We need to just attach patches to their clothes- that would be cheaper, and give us an excuse to "take care of them" if they forget to wear their patch.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dogday]

20. First These Groups, Then Political Dissidents....

anyone who dare speak against the King....

[Just Me]

3. He's talking about registering those convicted of hate crimes,...

,...which is more akin to restricting the expansion of such crimes rather than restricting free political speech. Free speech and HATE crimes are distinct issues. Once you advocate crimes against a certain section of humanity, you have stepped way past the free political speech line.

[Mairead]

5. "Once you advocate...you have stepped past the free political speech line"

Really? Could you expand on that a bit? Where should the criminalisation of speech stop, do you think, and why there rather than somewhere else?

[Just Me]

9. You're confusing the abuse of free speech to justify hate crimes,...

,...with "criminalization of speech". Hitler and the Nazis did that, abused their power to speak in order to justify their hate crimes while simultaneously criminalizing non-violent speech opposing the hate crimes.

Do you think it's okay to allow these folks to abuse free speech for purposes of justifying hate crimes? I don't.

[Mairead]

12. I'm definitely feeling confused :-)

But mostly because I'm not sure what you're saying. In the post to which I replied, you said 'Once you advocate crimes against a certain section of humanity, you have stepped way past the free political speech line.'

'Advocate' means speak in favor of, not commit, so we're talking about speech, not act.

You're saying that oversteps some line, and I'm asking you why you draw it there. (I say 'you draw' because the line isn't drawn in law. Someone can say 'aardvark lovers should be taken out and shot' and that's not a criminal act in any jurisdiction I know of.)

[beyurslf]

6. Once COMMIT the crime, you have gone past advocacy (speech)

[iverglas]

19. I think you're confusing "hate crime" and "hate speech"

As far as I know, there are very few restrictions on actual speech in the US. (In Canada, it is a crime to "incite hatred" of particular "identifiable groups" by communications in public, for instance, or to incite genocide.)

If the sheriff is talking about people convicted of hate crimes, I think he is talking about people convicted of, say, assault, where the assault was determined by a court to have been motivated by hate of one of the relevant vulnerable groups (identified by race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever).

They haven't said something nasty, they've been convicted of doing something nasty, and found to have been motivated by hatred of a group. The sheriff may have confused the issue when he said:

"These Nazi white-supremacist groups are classic examples of people who slide underneath the First Amendment and at the same time commit these hate-crime acts," Baca said. "I think they need to be looked after and monitored for quite a long period of time."

but I think he was talking about two different things -- they successfully claim protection for their speech activities, but they're the same people who are committing violent acts. The registry he proposes would track those convicted of the violent acts. He seemed to be saying that the fact that they successfully claim protection for their speech doesn't make them nice people.

So the question asked in the opening post:

We have data to say that certain categories of sex offender are compulsively recidivist, so okay, there's maybe some justification (enough?) for listing former sex-offenders...but where does the justification come from in the case of violent bigots?

is on point: these are "violent bigots", people whose bigotry prompts them to commit acts of violence against other people.

Well, I dunno. Maybe bigotry is more easily cured by a stint in prison, or a fine, or probation, than is sexual predation. I would actually tend to see the two as quite similar. They are serious flaws in the person's personality, or holes in their conscience, that they are unlikely to be successfully "treated" for. Someone who commits assaults on someone else based on the victim's status (age, sex, race, etc.), and his/her fixation on that status, is arguably unlikely to change.

Now, a bigot might indeed be more likely to deterred by punishment sufficiently that s/he would then control his/her impulses and refrain from acting out his/her hate against vulnerable victims. It may be that the sheriff has experience that suggests they are not.

Sexual predators can be required to stay away from children, and there can be more limits placed on their exercise of other rights: not associate with adults like themselves, not access printed/visual materials that others would be entitled to access. Perhaps such limitations on people convicted of violent hate crimes would be justified as well, i.e. not associate with other white supremacist individuals/groups, not access white supremacist materials. The reasons would be the same: to protect the public from the increased likelihood that they will reoffend if they continue to do those things.

[jobycom]

25. But

The problem for me with this (I'm not speaking for the OP here, just for me) is that the reason the person is being treated differently AFTER serving out their sentence is because of their political and social belief. If I commit a simple assault on my neighbor, even a black neighbor, then I go to jail, pay the fine, serve parole, and I'm free. But if someone assaults a neighbor for racist reasons, they go to jail for longer, pay a fine, serve a longer parole--all justified--but then they aren't free, or not as free.

It looks an awful lot to me like they are not being punished for the crime--for which they have already served their time--but for their beliefs. I have a problem with that. If there is some reason to believe they are potential repeat offenders, then they should receive longer sentences, longer paroles, etc, but to say that someone deserves an indefinite punishment even after being released begins to cross the line into cruel and unusual punishment, to me.

Keep in mind, I don't feel really good defending the rights of such a person, but I don't like the precedent it sets, and I don't like to see anyone's rights violated. A person should be allowed to overcome their mistakes, and laws like registration of criminals, whether sex offenders or hate criminals, seems to take away that right.

Then there's the whole other question of when it stops. Drunk drivers? Deadbeat parents? People who speak out against the government? Once the precedent is set that this type of punishment is legal, then it is just a matter of deciding which crimes you are going to use it for. And that's the scariest part of all, to me.

[iverglas]

29. but nothing

The problem for me with this ... is that the reason the person is being treated differently AFTER serving out their sentence is because of their political and social belief.

No, it is not. That is not the reason. And it's that simple.

It is because of the (assuming for the sake of argument, since no one is actually being treated differently at present anyway) demonstrated higher risk that the person will re-offend in the same way.

The determination is that someone who has been convicted of a particular kind of offence presents an elevated risk of re-offending in the same way. NOT that someone who holds a particular political or social belief presents that elevated risk (even though that is very probably also true).

But if someone assaults a neighbor for racist reasons, they go to jail for longer, pay a fine, serve a longer parole--all justified--but then they aren't free, or not as free.

Well, at present, they are. There is apparently some proposal that they should be "less free" by being required to do whatever it is that being in a registry of this sort requires them to do.

If there were no precedent for this at all, your argument would be stronger. The fact is that there is a precedent for it: sexual offender (particularly sexual offenders against children) registries.

The question is whether there are factors in common between the two groups that would suggest that if the mechanism is appropriate for one it is also appropriate for the other. Or, of course, whether there are factors based on which the two groups can be distinguished in such a way that the mechanism for one can be shown to be inappropriate for the other.

I wasn't actually expressing an opinion on the issue. But you have, and you haven't addressed those questions. There are very probably others (proportionality between rights violation and harm averted, rational connection between the two, etc.), but those are simply pivotal to the discussion.

If there is some reason to believe they are potential repeat offenders, then they should receive longer sentences, longer paroles, etc, but to say that someone deserves an indefinite punishment even after being released begins to cross the line into cruel and unusual punishment, to me.

Well, I did address this notion in considerable detail in another post.

"Punishment" is only one, relatively minor, consideration in sentencing, and sometimes not even that.

People are sentenced -- essentially, deprived of the ability to exercise one or more right or freedom -- in order to
- deter them from committing further crimes
- deter others from committing crimes like theirs
- rehabilitate them
- denounce their behaviour ...
Those are common sentencing objectives, although local results may vary.

Sentencing basically has nothing at all to do with "paying a debt to society", I'd also mention. No reimbursement or compensation occurs when a person is imprisoned.

It is certainly arguable that sentencing an individual based on the consideration of general deterrence (the aim of deterring other people from committing similar crimes) is, if not cruel and unusual punishment, a denial of due process and equal protection, since the sentence is arbitrary vis-à-vis the individual him/herself. It's also arguable that it's simply ineffective in the case of many kinds of offences.

But it's been a consistent and omnipresent intended purpose of sentencing for a very long time, and if it's to be applied to other people and offences, why not to white supremacists and their crimes?

Then there's the whole other question of when it stops. Drunk drivers? Deadbeat parents? People who speak out against the government?

Oooh, I do love a good slippery slope; don't you?

What we might do is consider whether there are commonalities between any of those cases and the ones we are considering, and distinctions between any of those cases and the ones we are considering, that might provide us with good reason either to extend the mechanism to any of them or, conversely, to observe that there is no arguable basis for doing so ... or for fearing, or claiming, that it would be done.

Once the precedent is set that this type of punishment is legal, then it is just a matter of deciding which crimes you are going to use it for.

Damn, isn't it something how we can say just about exactly that about just about anything?

Once the precedent is set that imposing a 30 km/h speed limit (say, 20 mph) is legal, it's just a matter of deciding which places you are going to use it for.

Oddly enough, we don't seem to have much trouble deciding that it's an appropriate speed limit for school zones, but that people who drive over 20 mph on the highway should not be fined.

The precedent would be that this type of legislative measure is legal (constitutional) for particular purposes. Again, this is NOT "punishment"; it is a limitation on the exercise of rights or freedoms imposed in the public interest that is at least arguably justified, just like speed limits or prohibitions on firearms acquisition by people convicted of serious criminal offences. The measure would not be taken to punish the people subject to it, it would be taken to protect the public.

And that's the scariest part of all, to me.

And yet to me, it's the bogeyman.

[jobycom]

33. Too many words

I'm not in the mood to respond, except to say that you've only restated what I was arguing against in the first place, so there's not much point in me restating it.

[forgethell]

4. The Hate crime

idea is a bad one. Punish people for their actions, not their motivations. You're just as dead if you are killed by a mugger as by a racist gang (black or white, Christian or Jewish or Muslim).

I also disagree with the sexual offenders registry. Don't track 'em. Keep 'em locked up.

Why do we go to such elaborate lengths to avoid doing the things that will actually solve the problems?

[Mairead]

8. "Punish people for their actions, not their motivations"

The idea of a 'hate crime' category actually makes sense to me: we're all at risk of being victimised in a sort of random way, so we can say that that risk is part of the price of living in an urban area.

But people who commit hate crimes aren't doing it for any sensible reason like they need money and don't want to work at a 'straight' job. Straight criminals don't want trouble, they want our wallets. But the people who commit hate crimes want blood and pain, and not only do they astronomically raise the risks of their target group, but the damage they do goes far beyond the damage a straight criminal does.

So it seems fitting to me that, since the crime they commit is not ordinary or sensible, the punishment not be ordinary either.

(But I still don't agree with the list idea.)

[forgethell]

11. Dead is dead;

beaten is beaten, robbed is robbed. There are no sensible reasons for such mindless violence. The very thought makes me gag, and should make every decent person gag.

Besides, these things are very seldom a one-way street. Some years ago, in LA I think it was, there was a black gang whose initiation rite was to kill a white person. Does this sound like random violence to you.

It isn't the statistics that bleed. Punish the crime. Give it the punishment it deserves. The motivations are irrelevant.

[Mairead]

14. "Does this sound like random violence to you?"

No of course it doesn't! Which is exactly my point.

[forgethell]

16. And my point is

the fact that it was casued by blalck racism doesn't make it any worse, nor would it if it were white racism. The killers should have been executed regardless of whether they did it for racist reasons or robbery or whatever.

[iverglas]

22. ah, the voice of the "liberal" is once again heard in the land

Lock up the sex offenders til they die, kill the killers.

In what century was that stuff actually regarded as "liberal"?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. If that was true

Involuntary manslaughter would be prosecuted as murder. It clearly isn't. Motivation is a PRETTY BIG deal.

[formernaderite]

23. sensible reasons for killing?

"ut people who commit hate crimes aren't doing it for any sensible reason like they need money and don't want to work at a 'straight' job. Straight criminals don't want trouble, they want our wallets."

So, if I kill you for a sensible reason, it's much better than merely because I hate you. This is my issue, if we are handing out life sentences or worse, death penalties to criminals...you're telling me that convicting them of a "hate" crime will make them more dead? I'm also of the persuasion that most people kill out of hate anyway.

[iverglas]

24. I'm hearing voices

But people who commit hate crimes aren't doing it for any sensible reason like they need money and don't want to work at a 'straight' job. Straight criminals don't want trouble, they want our wallets.
So, if I kill you for a sensible reason, it's much better than merely because I hate you.

Well, actually, it's not *me* hearing voices.

Can you identify, by some of that html stuff maybe, or just by quoting it, which portion of the statement you quoted (in italics above) means that something is BETTER than something else?

Do you have a dictionary where "sensible" is defined as "good"? Can you give me a citation?

This is my issue, if we are handing out life sentences or worse, death penalties to criminals...you're telling me that convicting them of a "hate" crime will make them more dead?

She WAS?? How did I miss that?

If you think she was, why the question mark at the end of that statement? If you don't think she was, why ask the question?

I wonder; are you aware that many, many people who are assaulted don't end up dead?

I'm also of the persuasion that most people kill out of hate anyway.

Many do. And many assault out of hate.

But people's reasons for hating other individuals are as numerous as the people who hate and are hated. And it isn't really possible to make sentencing rules that address, say, "people who beat up their spouse's sibling whom they hated because s/he borrowed money and never gave it back". And what reason would there be to do that?

There ARE reasons to regard people who beat up other individuals because they are members of particular groups, and specifically groups that are vulnerable in our societies, as requiring special treatment.

For one thing, as a society, we have a responsibility to offer equitable protection to all members of our society.

People who are commonly targeted for violence based on their religious or racial or ethnic or sexual identity are arguably not being given equal protection if special measures are not taken to protect them against the unequal risk they face. And especially harsh punishment of those who commit that violence may be justified in order to deter them and others from repeating it.


Don't you think it might be fun to address some real issues instead of distorting someone else's words into a straw thing and knocking it over and squealing gleefully? I recommend it.

[jobycom]

27. All crimes are defined by motivation

If I kill someone by accident, it is not the same type of crime as if I killed them on purpose. If I kill them in a fit of rage, it is not the same type of crime as if I plot for weaks to murder them so I can take their money.

It is only motivation which makes it a crime.

The reason hate crimes should be punished more harshly than other crimes is because the attack is not just on the individual being beaten, raped, tortured or murdered, but it is directed at a larger group of people. To protect that larger group, the crime is punished more harshly, under the (in my opinion naive) assumption that punishment somehow acts as a deterent to violent crimes.

It is the same reason that if you kill a police officer, you are sentenced more harshly than if you kill a civilian. The police officer is just a person, but also represent something larger--law, justice, all that stuff. In addition, the police officer is part of a group that--if not protected--becomes a popular target.

Hate crimes carry an implied threat, a terroristic threat, to anyone of the same grouping as the victim. The crime is not a simple crime, it affects and endangers more people than a simple crime.

[iverglas]

30. oh, lord

All crimes are defined by motivation

NO CRIME is defined by motivation.

Crimes are defined by the act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea).

"Intent" is NOT "motivation".

If I shoot you in the heart and you die, I have committed homicide. Homicide consists of an act that is intended (or will reasonably foreseeably cause) to kill someone, and did kill someone.

If my motive was to stop you from plunging the knife you are holding over me into my heart, I may be excused for committing the offence, but the offence was still committed.

It is only motivation which makes it a crime.

NO!! If I steal your money with the motive of giving it to the homeless and plan to keep none of it for myself, I have still committed a crime.

My INTENT was to steal money, and that is a crime, regardless of WHAT my motive was.

Motive can obviate criminal responsibility (guilt), and it can also be an aggravating or mitigating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

I'm also of the view that not simply the motive, but the act and intent themselves, can be regarded as different in the case of "hate crimes", and that's where I find the rest of what you say quite right on, and think it bears repeating:

The reason hate crimes should be punished more harshly than other crimes is because the attack is not just on the individual being beaten, raped, tortured or murdered, but it is directed at a larger group of people. To protect that larger group, the crime is punished more harshly, under the (in my opinion naive) assumption that punishment somehow acts as a deterent to violent crimes.

It is the same reason that if you kill a police officer, you are sentenced more harshly than if you kill a civilian. The police officer is just a person, but also represent something larger--law, justice, all that stuff. In addition, the police officer is part of a group that--if not protected--becomes a popular target.

Hate crimes carry an implied threat, a terroristic threat, to anyone of the same grouping as the victim. The crime is not a simple crime, it affects and endangers more people than a simple crime.

We are absolutely ad idem on that -- except perhaps for that "naive" opinion. I do agree with that in a general way: "general deterrence" is largely a fairy tale. But it may work in some cases. There may be some types of offenders who are amenable to the deterrent effects of sentences imposed on other people. The more rational, non-impulsive the offender's behaviour, and perhaps the more the offender has to lose and a few other factors, the more amenable s/he may be.

I tend to think that the hate crimes and their perpetrators may be one instance where the effect could be anticipated.

[jobycom]

32. Motivation, intent

Guess I meant intent instead of motivation, then. In that case, hate crimes are punished for intent, not motivation, and my argument still stands. Motivation causes intent, anyway.

[forgethell]

34. But if you kill

someone on purpose, except in cases of self-defense, the motivations don't really matter. Sexual jealousy, money, racism. They're all the same as far as the punishment should be concerned.

[iverglas]

21. same old simplistic blah blah

Punish people for their actions, not their motivations.

There are many functions of sentencing besides punishment.

One is to deter the individual from committing further such crimes. If the individual is rational and able to control impulses, this may work.

One is to deter other individuals from committing further such crimes. If the other individuals in question are rational and able to control impulses, this too may work.

An assault committed out of hate based on race or religion of sexual orientation IS different from an assault committed out of a desire to acquire a wallet or avenge a slight or gain some other advantage.

Some assaults are very personal -- men tend to assault and kill their wives and girlfriends (and exes), not random women on the street, for instance.

Some assaults are random -- if you're the person standing on the corner with a wallet in your pocket, you're the one who will get robbed.

Some assaults are not personal, and also not random. An assault on a gay man coming out of a restaurant is not personal: the assailants have never even met the man. It is not random: he is targeted because he is gay, not because he's the one coming out of the restaurant.

That assault is pre-meditated in a way that most other kinds of assaults are not. A conscious decision was made, often by a group of people, to seek out a victim and assault him/her. That is very arguably a deterrable offence. Persuade the people who are at risk of committing such offences that things will go very badly for them if they are caught, and they might just go see a movie instead.

They don't need to commit the crime; they aren't going to get anything of value out of it. They have not been provoked beyond reason, in the heat of a moment, by the person they might assault. They have simply decided to do something very bad -- and a major reason for doing it is usually to terrorize other members of the group to which their victim belongs. These crimes are plainly committed to exert control over people and groups whom the assailants want to deny power and autonomy.

And in terms of another purpose of sentencing -- denunciation -- society does indeed see some crimes as more heinous than others. Assaulting a child or elderly person is "worse" than assaulting an adult; a man assaulting a woman is "worse" than a man assaulting another man. In those cases, the victim is vulnerable and the assailant is indeed regarded as nastier. And because of the vulnerability of other potential victims like them, society tries to send a message to others who might act like their assailants.

As long as these various things are regarded as legitimate purposes for sentencing, there is very good reason to treat offences motivated by hate differently from other offences. They're different, and the people who commit them are different, and the aims of the sentence are different.

I also disagree with the sexual offenders registry. Don't track 'em. Keep 'em locked up.

Yeah. Take a course in constitutional law.

Why do we go to such elaborate lengths to avoid doing the things that will actually solve the problems?

Not seeing any evidence that you're actually interested in solving any problems.

[forgethell]

26. As you yourself said,

"blah,blah".

I refer you to the legend of the Gordian knot. We are not required to consider the motivations, although it may be useful in accomplishing our purpose. Our purpose is to prevent these crimes. Certain punishment has been proven to work. Nothing else has.

[beyurslf]

7. When they first started this sex offender registry I asked how long

it would be before they started making others register as well. Down the slippery slope we ride....

[The Magistrate]

10. A Registry Of Persons Convicted Of Bigoted Violence, Ma'am

Seems to me a very sensible proposal. Several points sre worth making in regard to it.

First, violent racism is not a political viewpoint, and any defense of it as such such is extremely misguided. The idea of free speech is no more involved than it is in any other incident of threatened harm to another. It is a purely criminal matter.

Second, persons who engage in this behavior do indeed have a high degree of recidivism. Violent bigots cling to their orientation, and repeat their offenses; further, they tend to seek out others of their ilk, organize, and spread their venom.

Third, any criminal conviction is already a matter of public record, and these are not too difficult to find, for persons interested in pursuing such material. A roster such as this would only serve to make it a bit easier for people to discover such convictions; it would not materially alter the situation.

[forgethell]

13. Why not publish

the names of all persons convicted of a crime? That way, you would know if you wanted to associate with them at all, invite them to your parties, hire them to manage your money, babysit your children, fix your car.

As you say, it is a public record, why make it hard to get?

[The Magistrate]

15. As You Say, Sir

They are already available. Criminal records are often consulted in matters of employment, and sometimes are a permanent bar to lisencing for such things as money amnagement and child-care.

This is really a question of publicity, and of laying down a public marker that this behavior is viewed as extremely reprehensible....

[forgethell]

17. I'd think a jail sentence

is marker enough. My opinion is: if we have to keep watch on them, the best place to do it is in jail. Make sentences appropriately. when they have "paid their debt to society", they ought to be free men with no Big Brother watching over them.

If they are dangerous, don't let them out.

[SmokingJacket]

18. A very bad idea.

The only reason I sort-of-tolerate the sex crimes-registry stuff is because there is a documented history of extremely high recidivism among sex offenders. Ideally people who pay their debt to society should be allowed to move on... but I can see that maybe we ought to make an exception for sex offenders. Maybe.

But we have to stop there. If we can justify registering people for hate crimes, the govt will be able to justify registering political protestors, and shop lifters, etc. Bad, bad, bad stuff.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. I'm All in Favor of Labeling Violent Racists, Homophobes and Sexists

With a scarlet "H" for Hate Crimes via a public register.

DTH

[BringEmOn]

31. If there was justice, Mark Furman and about half of LAPD would have to

register as convicted of hate crimes.