Thought for the Day

By Jim Wooten.

The problem with hate crime legislation is demonstrated by the unprovoked assault by 10 or more thugs on young Joshua Martin outside Six Flags Over Georgia. All are the same race, but suppose otherwise. So when is it a hate crime? By the way, wonder how many of the gang have fathers in the home?

By the way, I still say the murders of the Hispanic migrant workers in North Georgia by multiple black men would be treated as a hate crime if the murders were white. In fact, have hate crimes laws ever been invoked against people who were not white heterosexuals?


  1. Wooten’s column had a much broader scope than hate crimes

    BTW, Jim W is an ex Maconite, he lived around the corner from you Erick and had two neighbors named Hooten and Tooten. They tried to get the street renamed to Tooten, Hooten, & Wooten Blvd – true story, the other Jim told me before he passed:

    1) Wooten on Open Records:

  2. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Didn’t know where else to post this…

    But, in regards to the “Freedom Fund of Georgia” ad:

    Who is Regan?

  3. Erick says:

    Sarawara, as for evidence, I can’t seem to find any hate crimes cases except those where the defendants are white heterosexuals.

  4. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Maybe Don Regan – former Secretary of the Treasury and Chief of staff to a US President in the 1980’s.

  5. Sarawara says:

    The FBI’s own hate crimes statistics pages show a lot of reported hate crimes perpetrated by non-whites:

    Most of the prior years’ tables are difficult to find because of the way they are organized, but the page for 2005 lists the race of the offenders. In 2005, 27.2% of offenders in reported hate crimes were non-white. 60.5% were White, 12.3% were of unknown race, 5.2% were Multi-racial, 1.1% were Asian and 19.9% were Black.

  6. Harry says:


    May I point out that Angela Speir is a Republican, as are all other PSC commissioners. For all the years the PSC was run by Democrats they never bothered to limit the lobbying. Further, my readings indicated that all but one of the commissioners were generally favorable to adopting the rule.

  7. Erick says:

    I stand corrected, but it sure seems like there is a strong propensity to designating white defendant crimes as hate crimes.

    Personally, I am surprised 100% of all crimes aren’t considered hate crimes.

  8. dorian says:

    It’s like a strict liability crime in reverse. I look forward to the day when the imperial federal government can simply hook some electrodes up to our noggin and just start prosecuting us for what we think. Imagine. We can have the thought police. The pre-crime police. Every anglo, protestant, heterosexual male is a suspect, and we aren’t guilty of something, we will be soon. God bless America.

  9. Nicki says:

    Hate crime legislation exists to force a lack of discretion in certain cases — generally one where the government wanted to make it clear that certain types of crimes were going to be prosecuted rather than dismissed due to individual prejudices. That said, it doesn’t really matter what the motivation is — the crime and the effect on the victims is similar, if not the same.

  10. dorian says:

    I respectfully disagree with you Nicki. The ‘lack of discretion’ as you call it comes into play in terms of aggravating the sentencing. It does not and cannot affect the decision as to whether or not to prosecute. Nor does it automatically attach to certain offenses. Those are charging decisions made by the prosecutor.

    If you were to ask the family of a white murder victim if they feel like the loss of their loved one should count for less than a black family, I am sure they would say no. This is true even if the perpetrator is also white. You can not make the punishment more severe for killing one class of person, without also inferring that killing another class is less severe. Thus, these laws automatically have the inference built in that murder, assault, rape, etc. is not as important to when you are doing it to one of your own race.

  11. jkga says:

    The justification (IMHO) for extra punishment in the case of hate crimes – crimes where the victims are targeted as representatives of a whole group of people – is that those crimes have the intention and effect of terrorizing the larger group. So there are additional sanctions for the implied threat to the group, over and above the harm to the individual.

    It’s not that the loss of a loved one counts more or less, it’s that there is an additional element to the crime, for which additional punishment is appropriate.

Comments are closed.