Well researched and written! It would be helpful for journalists who cover Congress and anchors who interview people in Congress to now this. They rarely do their homework and don't ask the obvious questions that should be asked during live and recorded interviews. Is it because they don't know? don't want to know? don't care? The answers are available for anyone to read, as your article points out so well. Thank you again for an excellent article!
Thank you for the feedback, Mark. I think the answer to your question is YES, all of the above. The law is far too complex for the untrained eye - and perhaps even so for the "experts." But there are many of us trying to diffuse information as best we can.
Rep Jackson-Lee has an extensive record of 'swing and a miss'. I think this one will add to that record. 1% of her proposed legislation becomes law and even fewer of those are even remotely substantive or serious. Taxpayers (and her constituents) are certainly not getting their bang for the buck and her 'representation' is below average certainly bumping up against poor.
Let me start by saying I’m not defending any person of any race causing harm to another. That said, I have wondered for awhile how, unless someone admits membership to the KKK, one goes about proving hate. It’s an emotion, a feeling. Since when are people not allowed to have private emotions? And if your emotions caused you to harm another, isn’t the harm enough? Who really cares about the motivation when someone has been killed? Eye for an eye. Take out the killer and that emotion is gone. Perhaps that’s an oversimplification, but I feel like Ms. Lee is trying to push her own agenda and will actually cause more harm to the justice system.
And now I think I just reiterated what you wrote.😂
Thank you for your comment Eva. At the end of the day, hate crime charges make better headlines, but they actually make it harder for the prosecutor. If, however, the hate crime allegation is a sentencing enhancement only, then it is only considered after a defendant has been convicted and the prosecutor need only prove the motive by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower burden of proof.
More than that, what is weird about this bill is that is assumes an individual's hate is (1) actually hate, which isn't a crime no matter how you slice it, and (2) that hate itself is a crime. This is why this jumps the shark!
How sad is it that I paused to question when gate became a crime? Because I did when I wrote my statement earlier. And I thought, “But it’s not... yet.”
Thanks, Kelley. Your commentary and analysis is very helpful for non-lawyers like myself.
Based on your experience, do you expect state or city bar associations (e.g., NYSBA or NYCBA) or publications such ABA Journal or Washington Lawyer to publicly opine on this bill?
Specifically, outside of the legislature and aside from individuals attorneys like your friend, are there any formal attorney groups or associations who will publicly speak out against such arguably “bad” proposed law? I.e., bills containing undefined or poorly defined terms.
Great comment, Jim. the bill will have to make it out of committee first, which I doubt it ever will. It would be marked up, of course, but with an R controlled House, this nonsense won't go anywhere. That said, if it did gain traction, then many different outside constituents will have something to say. IMHO, prosecutors will hate it, but the defense bar may like it - it makes it harder to convict their clients if motivation becomes an element of a crime.
Well researched and written! It would be helpful for journalists who cover Congress and anchors who interview people in Congress to now this. They rarely do their homework and don't ask the obvious questions that should be asked during live and recorded interviews. Is it because they don't know? don't want to know? don't care? The answers are available for anyone to read, as your article points out so well. Thank you again for an excellent article!
Thank you for the feedback, Mark. I think the answer to your question is YES, all of the above. The law is far too complex for the untrained eye - and perhaps even so for the "experts." But there are many of us trying to diffuse information as best we can.
Rep Jackson-Lee has an extensive record of 'swing and a miss'. I think this one will add to that record. 1% of her proposed legislation becomes law and even fewer of those are even remotely substantive or serious. Taxpayers (and her constituents) are certainly not getting their bang for the buck and her 'representation' is below average certainly bumping up against poor.
This makes me crazy ... I don't think people have any idea what their representatives actually do, or don't do. This is why CIVICS matters!
Let me start by saying I’m not defending any person of any race causing harm to another. That said, I have wondered for awhile how, unless someone admits membership to the KKK, one goes about proving hate. It’s an emotion, a feeling. Since when are people not allowed to have private emotions? And if your emotions caused you to harm another, isn’t the harm enough? Who really cares about the motivation when someone has been killed? Eye for an eye. Take out the killer and that emotion is gone. Perhaps that’s an oversimplification, but I feel like Ms. Lee is trying to push her own agenda and will actually cause more harm to the justice system.
And now I think I just reiterated what you wrote.😂
Thank you for your comment Eva. At the end of the day, hate crime charges make better headlines, but they actually make it harder for the prosecutor. If, however, the hate crime allegation is a sentencing enhancement only, then it is only considered after a defendant has been convicted and the prosecutor need only prove the motive by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower burden of proof.
More than that, what is weird about this bill is that is assumes an individual's hate is (1) actually hate, which isn't a crime no matter how you slice it, and (2) that hate itself is a crime. This is why this jumps the shark!
How sad is it that I paused to question when gate became a crime? Because I did when I wrote my statement earlier. And I thought, “But it’s not... yet.”
They're trying!
Thanks, Kelley. Your commentary and analysis is very helpful for non-lawyers like myself.
Based on your experience, do you expect state or city bar associations (e.g., NYSBA or NYCBA) or publications such ABA Journal or Washington Lawyer to publicly opine on this bill?
Specifically, outside of the legislature and aside from individuals attorneys like your friend, are there any formal attorney groups or associations who will publicly speak out against such arguably “bad” proposed law? I.e., bills containing undefined or poorly defined terms.
Great comment, Jim. the bill will have to make it out of committee first, which I doubt it ever will. It would be marked up, of course, but with an R controlled House, this nonsense won't go anywhere. That said, if it did gain traction, then many different outside constituents will have something to say. IMHO, prosecutors will hate it, but the defense bar may like it - it makes it harder to convict their clients if motivation becomes an element of a crime.