For example, perhaps blacks make up almost half of death row inmates because blacks (6463 in 2007) commit more murders than whites (5278 in 2007). It seems that this explanation does better than most to explain a disparity – if only we could learn that disparities do not necessarily equal discrimination. I agree with you on all three points.

A friend I’ll call John, contacted me by email on this post and wrote the following:

“I really think it’s an attempt by lawmakers to make it look like they’re doing something about a problem, regardless of whether it really helps. When the next election comes up, they can say that they’re fighting for minority rights without really doing anything.”

I tend to agree with both you – it’s a vile attempt to “control ideas and limit speech,” while developing political capital as a bonus. Unfortunately, it is succeeding.

Cheers.

1) If the criminal justice system is racist, as many claim it is, because it incarcerates blacks at a higher rate than whites, then it appears ‘hate crime’ legislation must be racist by the same token due to the ridiculous disparity in the number of prosecutions (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias), right?

2) By labeling certain crimes as ‘hate crimes’ we’re saying non-hate crimes aren’t as bad. So if I go out and dismember a 4 year-old girl slowly over 3 days, it’s not as bad as clubbing a black man in the head and shouting the n-word. They’re both murder, but one is a ‘hate crime’ and needs that little extra oomph for prosecution.

3) The First Amendment. Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech… I should be able to say whatever the hell I want while assaulting someone. The assault is the crime, but possessing ideas and speaking my opinion while in the commission of it.

Hate crime legislation is simply an attempt to control ideas and limit speech. It was passed by guilty consciences to raise up a stereotyped cartoon of downtrodden masses. It’s race law.