I hear all your points and they are very well taken, but it’s hard for me to be no more horrified by swastikas- and-racial-slurs in an ecumenical chapel as I am by the (hypothetical) “Go Cats” in the library.
My kids have an obviously Jewish last name. They are not Jewish. Their grandfather was (barely).
@pizzagirl In many jurisdictions, vandalism of a house of worship is a separate statutory crime, w/ more serious potential penalties. So yes, it would be totally justified for a prosecutor to charge it differently than a graffiti at a library. In addition, there are often additional charges in vandalism cases – criminal mischief, criminal trespass, etc.
For me, desecrating a library is quite possibly worse. B-)
“Is this meaningful in any way to how events will play out? Is it any more meaningful than any other upper middle class professional job that a parent might have?”
Probably not. It mainly means the kid is more likely to get outstanding legal advice.
Re the theory behind hate crimes, the idea isn’t that you’re punishing the speech. It’s that incorporating things like swastikas into crimes directs the crime at more than one victim. If I beat a guy up while calling him a jerk, it’s just a crime against him. If I beat him up while calling him a homophobic slur, it’s a threat to all other gay people in the community that I’m coming for them, too. In other words, it’s like the difference between a regular criminal act and terrorism. One is aimed at the victim; one is intended to intimidate a whole class of victims.
I’m just conjecturing here (and perhaps this is obvious to all, but I’m getting a little lost in the legal weeds), but it appears to me that these were two students idiotically (drunkenly?) trying to manufacture a hate crime in order to make Trump supporters look bad.
If you fake a hate crime, is it still a hate crime?
I gather intent only comes into play with regard to sentencing–it’s the outcome that matters, and the outcome here is that, aside from obvious vandalism and desecration of a house of worship, this type of thing can feel like an implied threat.
I just can’t fathom what two kids smart enough to get admitted to Northwestern were thinking when they made this decision. I mean, did it never occur to them that there would be video cameras in there?
Were they trying to incriminate specific students they know or just Trump supporters in general?
A lot of questions I’d love to have answered if only so I can lecture my own kids once again (quoting the current occupant of the White House): “Don’t do stupid shit.”
I’ve been wondering that too as that seems like the most plausible explanation of what happened here. In some ways worse than a hate crime per se. I can imagine being drunk enough to somehow think it was funny.
I think the whole hate crime thing is dumb, though @Hanna, thanks for the explanation - which does make some sense.
I have (somewhat) less problem with a law increasing penalties for “hate crimes” if the intent to intimidate or threaten persons beyond the direct victim is an element of the crime that must be proved. That isn’t so easy to prove.
“Re the theory behind hate crimes, the idea isn’t that you’re punishing the speech. It’s that incorporating things like swastikas into crimes directs the crime at more than one victim. If I beat a guy up while calling him a jerk, it’s just a crime against him. If I beat him up while calling him a homophobic slur, it’s a threat to all other gay people in the community that I’m coming for them, too. In other words, it’s like the difference between a regular criminal act and terrorism. One is aimed at the victim; one is intended to intimidate a whole class of victims.”
I heard on CNN yesterday that at least one DA is considering filing charges against Donald Trump for insighting a riot with his comments at a rally. If that happens, then given his disparaging/hostile comments about every group you can think of, would those charges would be upgraded to a hate crime? Or is this ban on disparaging other groups reserved for poor people and college students?
@LucieTheLakie Why do you think that? Has there been information out there to this effect? Why do you assume that they are not Trump supporters?
“If that happens, then given his disparaging/hostile comments about every group you can think of, would those charges would be upgraded to a hate crime?”
Making racist/misogynistic comments in the past wouldn’t attach to whatever incitement charge this DA is dreaming up. It has to be part of the crime. But I don’t know what jurisdiction you’re talking about and whether it even has a hate crime statute that can apply to incitement.
“it appears to me that these were two students idiotically (drunkenly?) trying to manufacture a hate crime in order to make Trump supporters look bad.
@LucieTheLakie Why do you think that? Has there been information out there to this effect? Why do you assume that they are not Trump supporters?”
Isn’t the pertinent part of their offense the swastika, the racial slurs (I’m assuming the n word) and the homophobic slurs (I’m assuming the f word) - not the writing of the word Trump? As much as I dislike Trump, it would seem that it wouldn’t really make a difference if they had written Clinton or Sanders on the wall. Or Spider-Man for that matter.
The followup is that it isn’t happening.
There are pretty narrow exceptions to First Amendment protections, and incitement would have to be pretty clear for it to be actionable speech. I don’t think anything he’s said would rise to the level of unprotected speech.
“But I don’t know what jurisdiction you’re talking about and whether it even has a hate crime statute that can apply to incitement.”
It was North Carolina. I see today that they decided not to charge him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-arrest-idUSMTZSAPEC3E1TLHAF
@brantly, if you read the entire paragraph I wrote, I specifically said I was just conjecturing, but my gut tells me, based on what I’ve read about the accused students, that they may have been trying to undermine Trump’s message, by making his supporters out to be monsters, figuring the ends justified the means. That would be an equally egregious offense, IMHO, but it’s still not clear to me if that alternate explanation would constitute a hate crime.
I could be wrong, obviously; it’s just my suspicion!
Maybe I’m misreading the description of the actual vandalism, @Pizzagirl, but my interpretation originally was that the perpetrators were Trump supporters, who were showing their support of Trump by attacking all the various protected classes, etc., they believed Trump hates too.
If my suspicion is correct, that they were trying to make Trump supporters look bad, then the numerous slurs were just part of the ruse. Not meant to terrorize as much as make Trump supporters look like terrorists.
I see your point, but it would seem to me that the other side would argue - well, how was the “audience” (by which I mean the NU community at large, I suppose) to know that that the intent was to make Trump supporters look like terrorists, and not to actually terrorize?
IOW, if I were to wear a white sheet, burn a cross on your lawn and leave behind the word Trump spray-painted on your garage, the fact that I “only did those things to make Trump supporters look like KKK members and I didn’t really mean it” doesn’t seem like all that compelling of a defense. I still burned a cross on your front lawn and defaced your garage.
Good call. You want to hand the election to Donald Trump and validate half the crazy stuff that comes out of his mouth, an idiot Sheriff trying to shore up his left flank is a great way to do it.
I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re arguing, ohiodad. Are you suggesting that Cook County should prosecute these two young men only from the vandalism / property damage angle and not from a hate crime angle (in other words, be agnostic about the content of the words, whether they were swastikas or Go Cats)? Just so I understand and represent your POV properly.
I don’t know if anyone clicked on the synagogue case I linked to earlier. That man, IIRC, had a machete (I think in his car) and apparently had a cache of weapons at home, so I suppose the case could be made there that there was more of a direct threat to others’ (i.e., Jewish people’s) safety than here - where there was no evidence that these young men were actually about to carry out anything violent. Is that the kind of thing that gets considered when deciding whether to prosecute as a hate crime - evidence of impending violence? Apologies for asking these questions, but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).
Remember the case of “false flag” racist graffitti at Oberlin in the not too distant past?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/oberlin-racism-incidents_n_3811610.html
I believe those students were not charged, and if they were, it was certainly not for a hate crime. On the other hand, they may not have perpetrated vandalism (ie, actual property damage). One thing the Northwestern bozos did was reportedly spraypaint a piano. That’s going to cost a LOT more than $300 to repair or replace!
That was pretty much what I was trying to understand. Legally speaking, if you fake a hate crime, is that essentially the same thing as committing a hate crime, i.e., is intent relevant?
And sorry, @Pizzagirl. For some reason I thought you were a lawyer.
@Cobrat, what I meant was that the NU perpetrators were trying to either make NU supporters of Trump look like terrorists, or reinforce the concern about how MANY Trump supporters in general are guilty of terroristic behavior.