@pizzagirl, sorry, I know that was confusing. I was responding to the publicity stunt pulled by the NC sheriff in contemplating charging Trump with inciting a riot. Unfortunately, in the time it took me to type those few lines, a couple other posts went up.
As far as what Cook County should do, I really don’t have an opinion. I know just enough about this area of the law to know that any decision to charge will be heavily dependent on the statutes in Illinois and also what the prosecutor can prove. I think as I said before that we as a society view crimes targeted at a place of special significance differently than “normal” crimes, and I think that will carry through however this is charged.
So Trump is not connected with the incident but his name has gained new meaning. They’re not necessarily pro-Trump or anti-Trump. They’re just jerks (who should be expelled).
Interesting. Does / can a name itself constitute a hate crime? I don’t mean Trump specifically. If, for example, the students had written “Hitler” (or I suppose more appropriately “Hitler was right” or words to that effect), would that constitute a hate crime?
While Alice Millar is meant to be an ecumenical, non-denominational spiritual place for the entire NU community, in practical usage it’s more used for Christian / Protestant services and gatherings because it has the appropriate trappings (organ, pews, stained glass windows, etc.); Jewish kids would typically go to Hillel (or Chabad, if that’s still around) for their services. Which begs the question - does a hate crime necessarily need to be in a location that “targets” the object of the hate? Now I can see where this definition of a hate crime gets so boggy.
The problem with hate crimes laws is that they apply different punishment for exactly the same action. Would it be a hate crime if a black person spray painted "I hate " in the chapel instead of a white person? Or would it be someone trying to ‘start a conversation’ (whatever that means) and not a hate crime ? What if the kids were just drunk with spray paint? Either way the crime committed was minor vandalism, though I can’t imagine they would be able to clean up the paint for only $300.
I see the problem though, with the Trump rally at UI-Chicago shutdown by left wing agitators and unruly students, though this particular incident seems rather juvenile.
“Either way the crime committed was minor vandalism, though I can’t imagine they would be able to clean up the paint for only $300.”
To clarify - all we know is that the damage is over $300 which pushes it into a certain felony class. That doesn’t mean it’s around $300. It could be $3,000 or $30,000 for all we know. This is an older historical building with stained glass windows, carved wood, an organ - my guess is that this isn’t merely “grab an old rag and turpentine and start scrubbing.” But I could be wrong.
@TooOld4School This was not minor vandalism. It is felony vandalism. And other charges may be involved – such as trespass. In terms of the bias enhancement – if the prosecutor does not think there is evidence to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this was motivated by bias, the charges will be w/ drawn. Bias enhancements are not easy to prove to a jury. In terms of different punishment for the same action – that happens ALL the time. Say there are two different people that kill someone via a single gunshot. The person who plotted and planned in advance (first degree murder) would get a different penalty than the person who committed the action in the heat of passion (manslaughter). Penalties are very different, same action. Except for a small class of crimes that are strict liability, crimes include a mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty action). The mens rea is typically intent, not motive though.
This kind of points up one of my concerns with hate crime legislation. It appears that in Illinois something can be charged as a hate crime if “by reason” of the race (etc.) of another person the crime was committed. So if this was a “false flag” crime, was it a hate crime? Maybe. If I were the prosecutor, and wanted to charge a hate crime, I’d argue that the words used were designed to create negative feelings among certain groups, and that this is enough to satisfy “by reason.” If I were the defense, I would argue that a showing of actual bias or intent to harm would be required. It would not be an easy case.
@Hunt – prosecutors make these kinds of decision all the time, every day when deciding when to charge crimes. If it’s a wobbler, do you try it as a misdemeanor or a felony? What degree of robbery, burglary, homicide do you charge? What kind of affirmative defense might you face? That’s why there is prosecutorial discretion. Bias enhancements are hard to prove, but there is nothing unique about having to make these kinds of distinctions, prove them to a jury, and facing a vigorous defense. Also, there has to be a crime first, before there is a “hate crime.” There are a million options available in this case before a bias enhancement makes it to a jury – a plea, a change of charges (again, happens all the time, every day), etc.
It seems like a lot of people in this thread are invested in the idea that this crime was not because the perpetrators were racist, but because they wanted to show that others were racist. Prosecutors don’t know everything about a case on the day they charge it; if that’s the case, the evidence will probably come out pretrial. At the end of the day though, there was likely a felony committed, regardless of whether it was bias motivated, and attempting to minimize that is problematic IMO.
There’s been nothing one way or the other to substantiate that line of reasoning, though (that it was a “faux hate crime” to portray Trump supporters as racist). Other than speculation on this thread.
As I think I intimated above, the awfulness of this particular crime really makes it irrelevant (from the point of view of likely consequences) whether the perpetrators were trying to support Trump or to harm him. I predict that, somewhere down the line, they will face a sentencing judge who will say, “I don’t care why you did it.”
Or whether they were just idiots who don’t even have any points of view about politics or race but just scrawled stupid things that they knew would be “naughty.”
@LionsMum , in your example (a murder), a different series of actions led to the same result. First degree murder implies a series of planned actions on the part of the murderer leading to the result. Manslaughter (or some crime of passion) implies that the result was spontaneous and with some predecessor actions by other parties being contributory so they are not the same crimes. If the same person was accidentally shot by a neighbor cleaning his gun across the street, the result would be the same but the series of actions (and presumably charges) different too.
If the drunken students had misspelled the racial epithet as a country in Africa, would it still be a hate crime? The damage would be identical less one letter. In the case of hate crimes involving speech, we have constitutional protection of free speech, no matter how repugnant. The real danger is that hate crime laws , conspiracy laws, government action, etc. are being used to suppress free speech. You see numerous examples of this with the Lois Lerner IRS scandal and even conservative speakers (e.g. Ann Coulter) being barred at universities while left-wing speakers are welcomed. There is even a senator talking about using RICO laws to silence climate change skeptics.
So IMO the hate crime laws are just another tool ripe for abuse and should be abolished. There are plenty of other more objective laws already on the books. Let the kids be punished at the appropriate level for the mess they made in the chapel, make restitution, and move on.
@TooOld4School You said the same “action” would be punished differently and that’s what I was responding to. That happens all the time that the same action is punished differently. Yes, they are different crimes based on intent or other acts – that’s what the criminal law does, makes distinctions – but the same action can and is punished differently all the time. There are many speech-related crimes. I can yell “fire” when there isn’t a fire at my house. If I yell “fire” at a crowded movie theater where there is no fire, I can be charged w/ criminal mischief or some other crime depending on the jurisdiction. Of course, anyone can be opposed to bias enhancements – but the idea that they are somehow unique or unprecedented in the criminal law for dealing w/ speech is simply not true.
You are basically asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Would the misspelling make a difference? I’m not sure how that is relevant, but as with ALL crimes, the prosecutorial team does an investigation. If there is not evidence of bias, the bias charge will be withdrawn. If the bias charge is weak, the defense will attack it at trial. There are many, many steps between allegation/charge of a bias enhancement and proof and punishment. They are hard to prove, and deservedly so. The First Amendment is not absolute, and that is why there are a number of crimes that have a speech component.
For the record, most of the crimes that have a speech component require other elements. For example, you mentioned conspiracy. In most jurisdictions, a conspiracy requires 1) an agreement to commit an illegal act and 2) two overt acts in furtherance of the agreement. The agreement alone (which is speech or expression) is not a crime. Similarly, bias motivation is not a crime. There needs to be an underlying criminal act first. And in this case, we don’t even know that the bias charge will be pursued. I would be surprised if this case doesn’t plead out.
@LionsMum , My point is that hate crime laws are unjust and subject to abuse. But I expect you are correct, it will be treated like a tagging incident and the kids will need to pay for the clean up and do some community service.
The sheer stupidity of these kids really makes you wonder though. Defacing a place of worship and contemplation at the elite university that they attend. My wife always reminds me that the teenage brain is not fully developed.