"The world is divided into the three super-powers Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Oceania is alternating at war with one power and allied with the other. The population of Oceania consists of three castes: the Inner Party (1%), the Outer Party (14%) and the Proles (85%). The Inner Party is the ruling caste and its sole desire is to gain power, have power, and keep the power - forever. The Inner Party uses a system of totalitarianism to stay in power, which means the total control over the people's actions and thoughts. "
-- excerpt, Reto Hohener's summary of the book Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell (http://www.warroad.k12.mn.us/moredocs/stdnt_work/rhohener/1984.1.htm)
" Killing people is already illegal" -- The Wizer
Since about the '90's, certain states as well as the federal government have tacked on additional penalties for what is termed "hate crimes". As I understand it, you might get 25 years for killing a gay guy; however if you can prove you didn't know he was gay, maybe you get off in 15? Either way, this guys's dead, so it doesn't seem to protect his rights any.
Is it a hate crime every time a white guy kills a black? Or when a black guy kills a white? How about Jews. Does it become a hate crime if you knew the man you killed was a Jew? Why? Maybe you killed him just because he was an a**hole. The first point is, why would it matter why you killed him? Killing is already illegal. There's no additional protection for the killee, so why is this even bothered with?
Consider that the only difference between the two such crimes is what you were thinking. So, the additional penalty has as it's only legal definition, what the user was thinking, or, in short, "a thought crime". It's difficult to ignore the Orwellian aspects of that; but assuming we can for the moment, how do we establish what the offender was thinking? That would seem to be a job for a mind-reader. Last time I looked, that was not a rational possibility.
So, the only remaining objective of the "Hate Crime" penalty is to create a system whereby thoughts are monitored. It may be a while before Science catches up with the law, and folks, I for one am concerned that they just might be able to do it someday. When the Inner Party starts to fund it, it's time to watch out.
3 comments:
I don't know what your point about the parties is, and I don't necessarily think "hate crimes" is a useful concept, but don't we already consider motivation and meaning in the commission of a crime? These are factors in aggravation, and they come into play in deciding what to charge and what the sentence should be. How does "hate" improve on that useful system?
Inner Party, in the context of Orwell's story, is the aristocratic minority that established thought crimes, and their punishments. In our current society, the Inner Party would be those who seek to control thought. They would be who we currently know as the stormtroopers of political correctness, most probably.
I agree, "hate" adds nothing, but I've never liked the notion of "aggravating circumstances" either. Same problem.
"Hate Crimes" is just about as close to Orwell's insidious concept of "thought crime" as it's possible to get. It is also right in line with the traditional Liberal inclination to treat people as members of a group, and not as individuals. It matters only what color or nationality a person is, not what their individual personality is like.
One thing that constantly comes to mind when I hear these hate crime laws is the fact they do not provide for "equal protection" as guaranteed by the Constitution. If I am walking down the road, and say goodbye to my black friend, and later he and I are both beaten severely by white supremacists, his beating is taken more severely than mine, because I am white. But then, Liberals have never had a real problem with discrimination and unequal treatment, as long as they were the ones determining who deserves the unequal treatment.
Post a Comment