As you may know, anti hate crimes legislation is winding its way through Congress. Think this would be a no-brainer for unanimous support? Think again. The inclusion of a provision that would include "gender identity" as a class of protected persons under the legislation has proved quite controversial. Senator Sam Brownback, consistent supporter of hate,
explains his reasons for opposing anti hate crimes legislation:
"I do not believe it is good, nor do I believe it necessary, for us to pass hate-crimes legislation -- which is thought legislation," he said. "We should punish the crime. We shouldn't try to ascertain the thought going on at the time of the crime."
I had to laugh after I read this. Brownback went to law school. He should know that accepted law already attempts to ascertain the thought going on at the time of the crime. Ever heard of voluntary manslaughter and wondered how it is different from second degree murder? From Findlaw:
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.
What is the difference? The state of mind of the killer at the time of the offense. If the court is able to divine the state of mind in this case, why wouldn't it be able to do the same in a hate crime case?
If Senator Brownback believes it is acceptable to target a person for a violent crime solely because of their gender identity, then he should just come out and say it. We already know that he is a hateful person. Trying to hide behind a legal argument that doesn't hold water just makes him look like hateful fool.
[Crossposted at the Anti Sam Brownback Blog]