Hadley's views touched lightly on Campaign Finance Reform's downsides, the dampening of free speech and a relative loss of monetary support from the drivers of our economy.  He then laid out a very rational view of the needless, and potentially dangerous, new fad of the social engineers called "hate crimes."  

Brown diverts attention by citing the 1803 introduction of judicial review as a principal that "has come back to us." He notes the erosion of 4th and 5th Amendment rights as demonstrated by the increase in poorly constituted search warrants and compulsory drug and alcohol testing.  Things all of us are concerned with.  Then he tags conservatives for these infringements.  In my view, these slippery slopes were first greased by Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy and have continued unabated irrespective of the dominant parties.   

MADD is hardly a Republican party organ.  Through their efforts, highway deaths have been reduced somewhat, but it has also made criminals out of 700,000 ordinary citizens each year because they were in a state that made them statistically more likely to injure others.  It costs those individuals, who did not have an accident nor injure anyone, $700M in fines, $4,200M in increased insurance rates, for an action that might have occurred.  Some social good has come from this, but the principal of preemptive guilt has become woven into our society as an acceptable loss of freedom for safety.  Ends justify the means.  

Brown who cites himself as a specialist in terrorism is "abhorred" by Hadley's logical explanation that a crime is a crime is a crime.  So if you are against "hate" crime legislation, you must be soft on terrorism?  Non-sequitur.  He then expounds "if a person kills you..for your money, it is clearly less abhorrent than if they kill you because you are African-American, Hispanic, or gay."  Less abhorrent to whom? Dead is dead.  Raped is raped. Maimed is maimed.  

Brown goes on "courts shouldn't have much trouble with a person's thoughts being used to establish motive.  After all, a person's blood test can be used against him.  Why not his thoughts?"  Wow!  Reread and think about that one.  It's heavy. Earlier, he expresses concern over the indiscriminent use of blood tests and blames conservatives.  Yet now, he uses the same practice as a cornerstone to justify another giant leap forward to "thought" testing!  Years ago, the Four Tops sang, "Brother, you can't go to jail for what your thinking."  Apparently, this will not be true in Professor Brown's new world.  

All "hate" crime legislation accomplishes is the right for the victims, and those that identify with the victim's particular classification, to rationalize their "hate" for those that "hate" them.  Hardly a social good.  On the other hand, it raises motive from an element of a crime, toward being a crime itself.  The probability that you will commit a hate crime has got to be higher, if you are a provable "redneck", than if you are a politically-correct political scientist.  Our socially good drunk-driving laws have already set the precedent of preemptive guilt for the social welfare.   How long will it be before we can identify real "rednecks"?  Surely, anybody who uses the "N" word shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.  Police should be staking out the local bars for anyone who uses the word, "queer" instead of "gay".  They could be dangerous to all who deviate from former sexual norms.  

Federal "hate" crime legislation is an even greater infringement on personal rights and liberties.  It's only raison d'être is to rush in when it believes that a local or state jurisdiction will not deliver what the Federal government deems to be an appropriate outcome.  It used to be that there were only a few crimes that would warrant the involvement of the federal government. i.e. Transportation of a minor across state lines, robbing a Federal vs. state bank, kidnapping, etc.  That all changed with the Civil Rights and RICO legislation and its been growing in leaps and bounds ever since.

There is a mechanism within the law to deal with crimes that offend the community.  The community provides a jury and jurists that should have a wide latitude in sentencing.  We don't need a federal or even state prosecutor to tell us that a child molester needs to be put out of harm's way.  A gay-basher who kills will not go unnoticed.  A church-burner will get his own hell from the local parishioner's who were dispossessed.   Let's save the Federal government for those things for which it is required.  To protect our nation for all enemies, foreign or domestic, and to pursue interstate criminals.  Let's keep it out of the local courtyard.  

 

 

Return to Top