C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Facts of the Case:
On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, a young black man, instigated an attack against a young white boy. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. According to Wisconsin statute, Mitchell's sentence was increased, because the court found that he had selected his victim based on race. Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of the increase in his penalty, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected his claims. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed.
Question:
Did the increase in Mitchell's sentence based on his bigoted motives violate his First Amendment rights?
Conclusion:
No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court found that the Wisconsin statute paralleled antidiscrimination laws which had been found to comply with the First Amendment. It also determined that the consequences for the victim and the community tended to be more severe, when the victim of a crime was chosen on account of his or her race. Thus, when the Wisconsin statute increased the sentence for such crimes, it was not punishing the defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements, but rather the predicted ramifications of his or her crime. Finally, the Court concluded that the Wisconsin statute did not violate the right to free speech because the occasion in which an average person's racist comments would be used against him or her in a court of law would arise so rarely that he or she would not feel forced to suppress them.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
The Court also held that judges are given wide discretion when considering factors pursuant to sentencing.
Hate crime legislation is therefore Constitutional, the OP is correct.
But, he gets no special consideration, because he is a straight white male.
Is James Anderson more or less dead because they 'hate' him?
Would I be more or less dead than James if someone murdered me?
Equality is what is important, not special victims.
In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.
Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?
1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.
Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.
hate crime stuff is just to make race card players feel good....
Hate crime laws are for those who love being victims.
Incorrect. See the cited case above.