Today's JG rant -- extra equal justice for a few under the law

Wow I wish I were a civil rights lawyer and professor of criminal justice, like David R. Hoffman (Hate crime opposition easily refuted, of March 31, 2019*).  If I were, I’d be so insulated from facts I too could make incredibly inaccurate claims that the JG editors would rush to publish.

*NOTE:  If you’d just waited a day, this letter would have been perfect.

One: Hoffman claims the bulk of hate crimes are committed against minorities.  Wrong.  2010 crime statistics prove, when adjusted for percentages of the population, whites are about 25 times more likely to be victims of violent crime at the hands of backs.

Two: “[T]here is a difference between crimes motivated by negatively stereotyping all members of a certain race or religion and crimes based upon personalized hatred against a person or persons.”  Really?  Is that “equal justice” or “extra” equal justice?    So if Hoffman were to advocate for “extra equal hate crime justice” to be applied to those haters outlined in “One” above, I’m sure Hoffman’s fellow leftist travelers would label him a racist of the highest order.

Three: “Intent [of a hate crime] is often proved through statements a perpetrator made; evidence of preparation; and membership in organizations that espouse hatred, just to name a few.”  Holy cow, I never knew it was so easy to read someone’s mind.  Just read their facebook page because everyone knows that everything people post on facebook accurately portrays their state of mind.  No one ever tries to portray a false picture of their lives on facebook.

Also, I know a lot people who vote Democrat but still advocate for the Biblical definition of marriage.  I know a few Democrats who support the party but are not raging socialists.  I know a few people who protest abortion (or the new Democrat position on that subject, infanticide) but still vote Democrat. So is possible to hold two competing values? Each of us proves it every day.

Four: I cannot believe any good leftist would bring up the Democrat goon army of their own making - the KKK (or its modern day incarnation AntiFa).  Since its founding it is the Democrat Party that has stood in the way of abolishing slavery, stood in school house door denying integration, voted in mass against citizenship, voting and civil rights for minorities and now advocates for Animal Farm justice where some animals are just more equal than others.

I notice Hoffman conveniently ignores the notion of the hoax. From Tawana Brawly to Jussie Smollett with Duke Lacrosse, Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story, mattress girl, Covington Catholic, Julie Swetnick et al in between, these “hate crimes” have a couple of things in common.  One, the left and their lemmings in the MSM jump to incorrect conclusions ruining lives in the process, and two the perpetrators of the hoax are never punished. 

Hate crime opposition easily refuted

As a former civil rights attorney and professor of criminal justice, I have been shocked but not surprised at the specious arguments used to oppose or neuter hate-crimes legislation. Four arguments routinely employed to oppose such legislation are disingenuous at best, and bigoted at worst.

One: Hate-crime laws only protect certain groups. The perception that hate crime laws give “special” protection to racial and religious minorities is because the bulk of these crimes are committed against such minorities.

Two: Hate-crime laws are unnecessary because all crimes against people are hate crimes. This ignores the fact that there is a difference between crimes motivated by negatively stereotyping all members of a certain race or religion and crimes based upon personalized hatred against a person or persons.

Three: Hate crimes are impossible to prove because nobody can read another person's mind. Intent is often proved through statements a perpetrator made; evidence of preparation; and membership in organizations that espouse hatred, just to name a few.

Four: Hate-crime laws violate religious beliefs because they give “special” treatment to the LGBT communities. This argument is countered by one simple reality: protecting is not endorsing.

It would seem the knowledge that Indiana's 1851 Constitution prohibited African-Americans from “coming into or settling” in the state; that its government, just a century ago, was controlled by the Ku Klux Klan; and, more recently, that its former governor and a majority of its lawmakers ignited national ridicule after the passage of a so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” would inspire its leaders, and its people, to enter the 21st century instead of puerilely wallowing in anachronistic hypocrisy.

David R. Hoffman

Mishawaka