Do Conservatives Favor Expanding Federal Hate-Crimes Law?
Gallup has a stunning new poll that shows a majority of conservatives favoring an expansion of the federal hate-crimes law. In fact, it's not even close. Majorities of both Republicans and conservatives favor the addition of sexual-orientation classes to the existing race and ethnicity classes (via Memeorandum):
A substantial majority of the American public favors the expansion of federal hate crime legislation to include crimes against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed such legislation, which is now being considered by the Senate. Republicans, conservatives, and religious Americans are slightly less likely than others to favor the expansion of hate crime legislation, but a majority of those in each of these conservative and religious groups favors the proposed legislation. ...Much of the organized opposition to the expansion of the hate crime law has come from conservative religious groups, while the nation's top Republican leader, President George W. Bush, has suggested he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. But there is little evidence from these data to suggest that a majority of Republicans, conservatives, or more religious Americans are opposed to the new law.
Q: There is a proposal to expand federal hate crime laws to include crimes committed on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Would you favor or oppose expanding the federal hate crime laws in this way?
The response to the question will surprise many here at CQ. Sixty percent of Republicans favored the expansion, and 57% of self-described conservatives backed it as well. In fact, all of the religious demographics favored it -- by even higher numbers. Catholics, for example, backed it 72%, while 65% of Protestants supported the expansion. Atheists and all other religious affiliations gave 3-1 support for the new law.
Given that the question was framed rather fairly, it calls into question the entire conservative effort to argue against the expansion of federal criminal authority. One has to wonder whether conservatives understand that this makes crimes like assault and battery federal offenses now, rather than state and local matters. It certainly shows that the conservative punditry -- who mostly opposed this on either federalist or thought-police bases -- has not made their case at all within their own community, let alone outside of it.
And the same can be said for the religious communities most bothered by the potential speech limitations, although that argument is rather indirect. (It comes from a different application of hate-crime legislation in Australia and Canada.) The efforts to push back against this bill have only garnered less than 30% support amongst the people who the critics claim will be most impacted by the bill.
If this is all the opposition that the conservative and religious critics can muster, then the bill will almost certainly become law, and President Bush will save his veto for other issues with more unanimity within his own political base.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on May 18, 2007 8:38 AM | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (22)
Posted by the fly-man | May 18, 2007 9:25 AM
Well at least you can still use hatred against fat people while committing a crime.
Posted by Nick Byram | May 18, 2007 9:50 AM
White motorists and Asian store owners could not be reached for comment.....
Seriously, this poll is bunk.
Posted by Diffus | May 18, 2007 9:58 AM
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that you can beat someone to death while shouting, "I hate you!" and not be charged with a hate crime, while woe be unto someone using politically incorrect language during a scuffle?
Posted by Diffus | May 18, 2007 10:00 AM
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that you can beat someone to death while shouting, "I hate you!" and not be charged with a hate crime, while woe be unto someone using politically incorrect language during a scuffle?
Posted by doug in colorado | May 18, 2007 10:00 AM
What was the sampling breakdown, and where did they find their "republicans"? This is a Thought Crimes bill, why would what the perp is thinking make the crime more heinous than the actual assault, battery, murder or whatever?
I don't buy it.
Posted by Bruce | May 18, 2007 10:16 AM
It also sets up double jeopardy and they can go after the politically incorrect twice
Posted by UnrepentantRedneck | May 18, 2007 10:39 AM
I for one intend to study it carefully and see if it can be used against the ACLU, Democratic Party, Michael Moore, Daily Kos, and Move-On. Since Democrats think with their emotions and not with their brains, there are bound to be "unintended consequences" to exploit. Surely we can find a way to cast BDS as a form of hate crime and nail them for thought crimes.
Posted by UnrepentantRedneck | May 18, 2007 10:46 AM
I for one intend to study it carefully and see if it can be used against the ACLU, Democratic Party, Michael Moore, Daily Kos, and Move-On. Since Democrats think with their emotions and not with their brains, there are bound to be "unintended consequences" to exploit. Surely we can find a way to cast BDS as a form of hate crime and nail them for thought crimes.
Posted by lexhamfox | May 18, 2007 11:22 AM
I really hate these laws.
Posted by convivialdingo | May 18, 2007 11:36 AM
I think the real problem you see in these kinds of polls is that people don't understand the difference between a "hate crime" and a "normal" crime (as defined by the nutballs that came up with it in the first place).
If you ask people to explain the difference - most people will say that hate (racial, etc) should be taken into the context of convicting and as admittable evidence. A few will agree to more agressive sentencing.
BUT, the proposed (and existing) law actually implements lower standards of evidence, harsher sentencing guidelines, and "special-classes" of felonies, specifically federal crimes.
A crime is a crime though - it should be balanced and fair - as the "scales of justice" have represented for eons. Ideally - there is no difference between a thug and a priest if they commit the same crime. Clearly there was already hate in their heart - and fairly should be judged by their actions and culpabilities in the crime committed.
I am for allowing "hate propaganda" as admittable evidence, but I am against special sentencing and federal expansionism.
Then again, mostt people in this country have no idea about the difference between justice and revenge, couldn't tell you the difference between Democracy and a Federal Republic, and wouldn't care anyway that they are steadily descending into an infantocracy.
Posted by Duane Truitt | May 18, 2007 12:00 PM
Personally, I oppose any expansion of hate crimes laws, but on the other hand, I am not surprised at a disconnect between the self-appointed conservative bloggers and radio show hosts who purport to speak for all conservatives and the rest of us. This disconnect has happened time and time again. Take the Teri Schiavo situation a couple of years ago ... the self appointed opinion leaders, and the elected Florida Governor and Legislature, as well as our President and Republican Congress all voted to take away the decision on Schiavo from the Florida courts, whereas numerous polls showed large majorities of self-identified Republicans - approx. 2/3 of Pubbies - opposed the politicians' efforts to strip the courts of its authority in this matter. Another issue is immigration - nearly all the conservative blogosphere and their posters are in high dudgeon today over the Senate compromise bill on a comprehensive solution to the illegal immigration problem - at the same time, opinion polling has consistently shown that large majorities of Americans and even a 60%+ majority of Republicans favor a comprehensive immigration bill over an enforcement only bill (like the one our Republican Congress delivered last year - just before they went down to flaming defeat in the 2006 elections). On abortion, it is clear that a substantial majority of Republicans identify themselves to pollsters as "pro life", and in similar numbers oppose the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. But on the other hand, consistent opinion polling results have shown that a very large minority (about 45%) of Republicans are either pro choice, or consider themselves undecided on the legality of abortion. Thus it's not a slam dunk to say that Republicans are any kind of monolithic opinion group. The party, indeed, is a coalition of differing interests and opinions, but one which is certainly much more conservative on balance than are the Democrats or independents. It should be fairly obvious by now that the internet and radio waves are dominated by a rather insular commentariat that is sometimes far out of touch with its political "base" that it purports to represent.
Posted by KW64 | May 18, 2007 12:50 PM
The question did not allow the option of opposing special sentencing based on motive at all. If you presume that there will be special sentencing for certain types of cases, then I am sure many would say "why the heck not include sexual preference?"
On the other hand, suppose you ask the question-- "Does it makes someone more dangerous to society if he punches someone's lights out, without provocation, because the victim is gay rather than merely because the puncher was having a bad day?" I doubt that most people would say it really makes a difference why one punches people, the issue is that we need to protect people from you and whatever is the appropriate sentance to accomplish that objective is what should be given to the perpetrators regardless of their motive.
Let's see where the conservative base is on motive-based sentencing before we even go to what motives deserve special treatment.
Posted by Cindi | May 18, 2007 12:58 PM
Yep, the Stalinists are gonna stamp out 'discrimination' if they have to kill us all to do it.
Posted by Sandy P | May 18, 2007 2:28 PM
--President Bush will save his veto for other issues with more unanimity within his own political base.--
He has a base?????
Posted by vc | May 18, 2007 6:29 PM
Here is difference between a hate crime and other crimes.
Hate crimes are different because they are used to intimidate a certain group of people. Hence the crime has not only one victim but a group of people for whatever reason.
A man killing another man over drugs is not a hate crime. It does not intimidate a particular group in society.
A man burn a cross on the front yard of an African Americans house is used to intimidate all African Americans.
These laws are needed to provide justice all the victims of a crime. A burning cross victimizes an entire black community.
If you can't understand the difference now...than you need to start educating yourself.
Posted by Papa Ray | May 18, 2007 8:21 PM
Well, What we need is a few (NO, a LOT MORE) Rednecks!! We ain't exactly what you call conser-a-tives and we been called a lot of names, but if this Republic calls us, we will be there to defend her.
Always have, always will be.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by Security | May 19, 2007 12:26 AM
It is possible that he would be driven to veto it - just to avoid having his changed stance thrown in his face - since he had publicly expressed his opposition to the bill.
The only possible exception would be a very high profile incident that shocks the conscience of the American Public occurring just as the bill is offered for his signature.
Posted by Security | May 19, 2007 12:31 AM
It is possible that he would be driven to veto it - just to avoid having his changed stance thrown in his face - since he had publicly expressed his opposition to the bill.
The only possible exception would be a very high profile incident that shocks the conscience of the American Public occurring just as the bill is offered for his signature.
Posted by Adjoran | May 19, 2007 1:16 AM
A crime is a crime. Setting crimes against certain victims apart for stiffer penalties says either that these groups are more worthy, or that the government can punish criminals for more than their acts, but also for their very thoughts.
The potential for abuse is evident in the way "speech codes" are enforced on our college campuses today. Better stick with GoodThink and GoodSpeak, and leave that ol' BadThink and BadSpeak alone . . .
Posted by Chuck DiMaggio | May 19, 2007 1:20 AM
Talk about hate crimes, check this out:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/18/video-fox-covers-the-christian-newsom-murders-on-bya/
Four black males raped, tortured and murdered a white couple who were going on a date. The young women was gang raped for two days before the monsters poured liquid bleach down her throat to destroy evidence. Her body was found in garbage bags in the home of two of these monsters.
These murders were never reported by the MSM since it happened in January. Today only Fox News made a brief report about it but left out the details.
If these murders were not racist, I don't know what is. If we need hate crime laws, crimes like this against whites by blacks should be included.
Posted by Thanos | May 19, 2007 2:22 AM
The problem with adding to the hate crimes lists is that the current statutes are really unconstitutional. They violate the equal protection clause by adding sentence length to the same criminal act assigned by motive. A murder is a murder, an arson is an arson. It's a dangerous path to tread because who decides what's hate, and what's not?
All hate crimes legislation stands squarely against liberty and the constitution.
Posted by Bitter Pill | May 19, 2007 8:41 AM
vc, are you too dense to see the impact of so-called hate crimes?
Does hating liberal asshats constitute a hate crime?