|
Have any so-called "hate crimes" ever been challenged
in Federal or state courts on any kind of constitutional
grounds?
I,personally,have trouble with the concept of anybody
who,for example,assaults somebody,being punished more
harshly because he admits that he did it "because the guy
was black" vs "because the guy was there".
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:28:58 GMT, Frank Kendall
<kendall482@hotmail.com> wrote:
Have any so-called "hate crimes" ever been challenged
in Federal or state courts on any kind of constitutional
grounds?
Yes.
Numerous times. On First Amendment and a variety of other grounds,
too. Some such statutes have been upheld; others have been
overturned.
For the lead First Amendment "hate crimes" U.S. supreme court ruling,
find and read the justice's opinions in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S.
377 (1992) and the (numerous) later rulings but other courts
construing/applying R.A.V., e.g., Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476
(1993).
I,personally,have trouble with the concept of
anybody who,for example,assaults somebody,
being punished more harshly because he admits
that he did it "because the guy was black" vs
"because the guy was there".
Find and read (among others) the state court decision Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 159 N. J. 7, 731 A.2d 485 (1999), then the U.S. supreme
court's justices' various decisions in reversing, 530 U.S. 466
(2000); Wisconsin v. Mitchell, supra.
|
| |
| |
For the lead First Amendment "hate crimes"
U.S. supreme court ruling, find and read the
justice's opinions in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S.
377 (1992) and the (numerous) later rulings but
other courts construing/applying R.A.V., e.g.,
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
I'm not sure R.A.V. (the initials of an underage criminal
defendant) qualifies as a hate crime opinion in the sense that the
original poster was using. The holding was about the intent to
intimidate (by burning crosses), so you could argue it wasn't that
it was done out of hate, strictly speaking, that made the behavior
illegal (though everyone agreed it was done out of hate), but
given that the intent to create fear in the minds of certain
people (blacks) was the mens rea of the crime, it was that intent,
regardless of the reason behind the intent, that defined the crime
and made it possible for the law against it to be constitutional.
A subtle distinction, perhaps, but one that seems to stop short of
settling the ultimate "hate crime" question, i.e. whether you can
punished someone strictly for what they were thinking (as opposed
to what they intended to cause to happen).
|
| |
| |
|
