OPINION & EDITORIAL
Shall make no law …
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Culture of intolerance spawns actions of hate on campus (January 25, 2006)
- Blame for crime misplaced (February 2, 2006)
- Students must make effort to stop hate on campus (February 2, 2006)
- Hate-crime laws promote diversity (January 24, 2006)
- Hate crime debate needed on campus (January 20, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Last week, this campus learned that two University of Wisconsin students and their friends allegedly vandalized the door and surrounding posters of an Ogg Hall LGBT liaison in a most reprehensible manner. Also disturbing, though, is that all four students involved have been charged with felony hate crimes.
Clearly, this criminal activity should not be condoned. If these four students did indeed commit the crimes they have been charged with, they should be punished by both the university and the state for their actions. And the punishment received should be commensurate with others who have committed crimes of similar nature. In any situation of law-breaking, citizens should be punished for the crimes they commit. Under no circumstances, however, should they receive criminal-penalty enhancements for the content of their thoughts.
Hate crime laws should not be used in criminal prosecution.
Such laws are a direct infringement on the First Amendment rights of the citizens of this nation, specifically their rights to free speech and expression. Even more disturbing is that the impetus behind these laws is to criminalize the thoughts of an individual in addition to punishing their unlawful actions. When hate crime laws are enforced, society is engaging itself in little more than thought control — the antithesis of basic liberty.
It may be difficult to find a situation in which hate does not permeate the mind of an individual committing a crime targeted against another person. Yet hate crime laws seek to endow certain individuals in society with protected-class status — a class that is considered more privileged — by punishing those who commit crimes against them more harshly.
In the end it is our belief that the abhorrent speech must be protected so as to ensure the security of the most civil.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 1:12am):
Ooooh... wow... editors... please talk to a Crim Law professor at the law school. You're completely missing the point.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 10:41am):
What a strange combination of articles on this page. I must say this is the weaker of the two.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 11:46am):
Thank you, thank you, thank you for having the guts to stand up for the first amendment. These boys actions, although deplorable, do not merit 17 felonys. It is rediculous to ruin their lives over one idiotic indescression.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 12:14pm):
This is just stupid editorial commentary. You don't have 1st ammendment rights when it impedes on the rights of others. If this were a case of them standing outside the dorm on the sidewalk with a sign saying "I hate faggots" thats one thing. Targeting a specific individual with harrassment does not grant them any free speech rights.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 12:15pm):
Have you ever even read the Wisconsin hate crimes statute? It doesn't give special status to anyone! It just says that a crime committed against a person or group (or their property) specifically because of a personal characteristic such as race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is a hate crime and should be punished more severely. That's any person or group -- white, black, Latino, Asian, or any other race; male or female; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or something else; gay or straight -- everyone is protected by statute, and no one is endowed with "protected-status class."
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 2:07pm):
Clear, to the point, and absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, the left will just respond with terms like "racists", "homophob", and "sexist", because they can't defend their position.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 3:27pm):
Um, yeah, gays and lesbians in the United States are definitely a "more privileged" class.
Nevermind that your last sentence doesn't even make sense. "It is our belief that the abhorrent speech must be protected so as to ensure the security of the most civil."
What? Ensure the security of who? These clowns knowingly committed a felony and deserve what's coming to them.
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 8:31pm):
Maybe if gays and lesbians actually had some rights...
Anonymous (January 24, 2006 @ 8:38pm):
These idiots were not taking their hate for one person out on that individual. They were taking their hatred for an entire group of people out on one individual. They weren't shouting out "I hate (fill in the victim's name)" but "I hate gays" (or whatever they said. That's what makes it a hate crime - that it was not a crime against one individual, but rather a crime against an entire group of people.
I wonder what would have happened if these kids had seen a gay couple out on the street that night.
Anonymous (January 25, 2006 @ 12:33am):
Okay, but if this same group of editors wrote a story about drug laws and the amount of people--black males in particular--being sent to prison for non-violent crimes, they would simply say "they shouldn't have broke the law then."
Well.....they did break the law. The concept of hate crimes has been established for a long time. Why is everybody suddenly switching their position on 'do the crime do the time'?
Anonymous (January 25, 2006 @ 5:50pm):
Isn't the definition of a hate crime roughly a crime committed based on someones race, creed, sexual orientaion ect? If that is the case, then this person was specifically targeted. In that context, I believe these 4 students should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Anonymous (February 3, 2006 @ 10:43am):
The difference between free speech or free thought and hate crime is the "crime" part. It is the part where the perpetrator believes that it is acceptable to perpetrate a crime on a person because of their membership in a group. That crime was just as likely to be committed tword any other member of that group. This last part means that the perpetrator of the hate crime was threatening all other members of that group with the same fate. That is more serious than a single contained event perpetrated on a victim because of that victim's identity. And simple vandalism becaomes more serious as soon as the word "die" gets involved.
