Hate crime law supporters weakened our criminal justice system and self-defense rights
And now they want to fix the system only for themselves.
By Michael D. Robbins, Director
Public Safety Project
P.O. Box 2193
El Segundo, CA 90245
August 31, 2001
Revised September 4, 2001
This older version is available here for historical purposes. This article was revised again on September 1, 2012.
It is recommended that you read the newer September 1, 2012 version of this article, which is available at:
Mr. Robbins is a Jew and the son of a survivor of pogroms (government sanctioned and sponsored torture and mass murder of Jews) in the former Communist Soviet Union.
This article was originally posted on FraudFactor.com on August 31, 2001 and revised on September 4, 2001 at http://www.FraudFactor.com/ff_first_draft_0006.html. The original article and all revisions were written by Michael D. Robbins.
September 1, 2001 – FraudFactor – There are numerous problems with “hate crime” laws that increase the punishment for crimes of violence and intimidation primarily if not only where the victim is black, hispanic, homosexual, Jewish, asian, or some other “minority” and the criminal expresses hatred as a motivation for the crime.
Although hatred based on race or religion is rude, vulgar, and despicable, in a free society, people have a right to be rude, vulgar, and despicable as long as they are not violating the individual rights of other people by physically hurting them or their property. The primary purpose of government in a free society is to protect individual rights and freedom, not to infringe on those rights and freedom.
Various compelling arguments have been made against hate crime laws, yet a significant and perhaps most compelling argument against hate crime laws has not been made except by this author, to the best of this author’s knowledge. This new argument is presented below as the first and primary argument against hate crime laws. Additional arguments follow.
Fixing Criminal Justice System Weaknesses Only for a Select Few
The most insidious aspect of hate crime laws is that they fix our weakened criminal justice system only for a select few and not for everyone across the board. Under hate crime laws, the government is discriminating and playing favorites based on race. Hate crime laws are promoted by activists in the most liberal soft-on-crime political factions that have consistently voted for liberal soft-on-crime Democrats who have greatly weakened our criminal justice system and eroded our right to own and carry firearms for self-defense.
Multiple studies by Professor Gary Kleck have shown that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other methods, including non-resistance. A firearm is a great equalizer, allowing violent crime victims to overcome criminal attackers who rely on physical strength superiority or numerical superiority.
The liberal political factions include blacks, Jews, and homosexuals, who typically have 80 to 90 percent Democrat voter registration rates.
After weakening our criminal justice system and right to self-defense, thereby increasing violent crime and endangering everyone, liberal politicians, political activists, and “community leaders” are now trying to fix the criminal justice system and increase criminal penalties only for their own benefit, when they and the groups they pander to become crime victims. They still refuse to fix the criminal justice system for everyone across the board.
Fix the Criminal Justice System for Everyone
If the penalties for crimes of violence and intimidation are too lenient, then the penalties should be increased regardless of the race or religion of the crime victim. This can be accomplished by electing conservative Republican legislators and through voter initiatives in states where voters have the right of initiative. We can make everyone safer by strengthening the criminal justice system with truth in sentencing and three-strikes laws, and sufficient new prison construction to prevent the early release of dangerous felons. If liberal Democrat governors and presidents have appointed liberal soft-on-crime judges, then all voters, including blacks, Jews, and homosexuals, should vote to elect Republican governors and presidents who will appoint conservative tough-on-crime judges.
So-called “hate crime” laws should be rejected in favor of strengthening our criminal justice system where necessary, and restoring self-defense rights by allowing all law-abiding adults who pass the background check to carry loaded concealed handguns in public for self-protection. Thirty-four states now have right to self-defense laws that issue self-defense permits on a “shall issue” basis. The states with these laws have experienced significantly reduced murder rates with no significant adverse effects. And in these states, the right to self-defense does not cease to exist once you leave your home or business. Furthermore, in these states, self-defense permits are no longer arbitrarily denied on the basis of race or economic status as in California, New York, and other states.
Relative Intimidation Impact of Violent Crimes
The argument that so-called hate crimes are more severe because they can intimidate many or all people in a community who have the same race or religion as the victim is weak if not entirely wrong. Crimes of violence and intimidation that do not target any specific race or religion can intimidate everyone in an entire community regardless of race and religion, thereby impacting a greater number of people. Crimes that target a specific race or religion intimidate fewer people than the entire population of a given community, and therefore have a lesser total intimidation effect.
Punishing Thoughts and Speech
Another problem with hate crime laws goes beyond the common criticism that they violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Hate crime laws actually punish people for their thoughts. The speech merely provides evidence of what the accused person was thinking. But the punishment is actually attached to the thought, not the speech expressing the thought. Furthermore, the speech is used to interpret the thought, and may be an unreliable indicator of the true thought.
Conversely, thought is the precursor to speech, and punishing thought is therefore an infringement on freedom of speech.
Punishing thought sets an extremely dangerous precedent that can be used to imprison and punish people simply for their thoughts and the government’s perception and disapproval of those thoughts.
Thus, the “liberal” and leftist Democrats are promoting laws and policies that violate free speech and even punish thought, and reduce public safety, while conservative Republicans and Libertarians are protecting free speech and thought, while promoting laws and policies that improve public safety.
Yet another problem is the absurd implicit claim some crimes of violence and intimidation lack hate. Are we to believe there are “love crimes” of violence and intimidation? Hate crime laws are based on the false premise that for two violent crimes with identical circumstances and outcomes, but with victims of different race or religion, one crime can be more “hateful” than the other and should therefore receive a more severe punishment.
Use Strongest Arguments to Educate the Public
In conclusion, we should use the strongest available arguments to educate the public on the dangers and discrimination of hate crime laws and on the benefits of the superior alternatives. In fact, under the definition of “hate crime”, enactment of hate crime laws may be considered a hate crime, because these laws endanger and victimize people based on their race, and in many cases, a hatred for their race by those promoting such laws.
First Posted: Friday, August 31, 2001 – 10:06 a.m. Pacific Time
Updated: Tuesday, September 4, 2001 – 11:48 p.m. Pacific Time
An updated version of this article is available at:
It was Last Updated: Saturday, September 1, 2012 – 6:50 p.m. Pacific Time
©2001 and 2012 by Michael D. Robbins.