Anti-Christian Messages

[Justin24]

About half a dozen christian churches/bookstore were defaced. One of the locations is the Mission which dates back to the times of the Spanish Arrival in CA.



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/08/BAG8EH4O2C1.DTL

 

[Irvine511]

idiots.

 

[yolland]

Intriguing that they chose to equate a cross with a swastika in their graffiti--that certainly adds a political overtone to it. It will be interesting to see who is behind this (if they can determine that).

 

[doubleU]

 

[verte76]

Dunderheads.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Vandalism is ugly no matter where it is.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well it is an attack on private property and that much of it is wrong.

 

[Angela Harlem]

True. I object to the vandalism of the churches for their beauty, but being a religious attack makes it no worse than someone spray painting someone's front fence with incredibly offensive material.

 

[yolland]

^ Can't really agree with that. Defacing a symbol of collective identity, such as a church (or a gay advocacy center, or a black heritage museum) with bigoted slogans most likely means to intimidate a far larger group of people (by showing oneself willing to step outside the law to challenge them) than spray-painting one individual's fence with "F*** you Mr. X" does. In that regard, it is worse. But legally speaking, yes, vandalism will likely wind up being the main charge.

Admittedly it gets a little stickier when the fence graffiti in question addresses the owner as an embodiment of some collective entity ("------s go to hell" or the like). I would guess that in most cases, such vandalism is also probably intended to send a message to far more people than the owner.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think the libertarian view questions the notion of whether "hate crimes" (which are thought crimes) should exist.

In this case, there may be an negative emotional impact because of the statements, but is this enough to create a separate crime over and above the underlying crime (vandalism, assult, or whatever)?

 

[Irvine511]

I think the libertarian view questions the notion of whether "hate crimes" (which are thought crimes) should exist.

In this case, there may be an negative emotional impact because of the statements, but is this enough to create a separate crime over and above the underlying crime (vandalism, assult, or whatever)?

in general, i think i take the libertarian view on hate crimes -- i don't see how someone hitting me over the head with a baseball bat and saying "faggot!" is worse than my freind who was actually hit over the head with a baseball bat and had his gym bag stolen is any better.

what is discriminatory is how some groups are considered worthy of hate crime status, and others are not.

however, i think yolland makes a good point in cases like this one. it does seem to be a different sort of crime, or at least intent, when someone vandalizes a building that is symbolic of a community -- i think it's difficult to make the case that, on an individual level, one person can be the representative of a whole community; however, a synagogue, church, or any other building that essentially stands as a symbol of a distinct group spreads the terror to a wider group of people than someone spraypainting "faggot" on the car i don't own.

there's an important distinction there.

 

[nbcrusader]

however, i think yolland makes a good point in cases like this one. it does seem to be a different sort of crime, or at least intent, when someone vandalizes a building that is symbolic of a community -- i think it's difficult to make the case that, on an individual level, one person can be the representative of a whole community; however, a synagogue, church, or any other building that essentially stands as a symbol of a distinct group spreads the terror to a wider group of people than someone spraypainting "faggot" on the car i don't own.

there's an important distinction there.

I agree the impact of the act is different (which may be intentional or not), but is it enough to be a crime in and of itself?

 

[Irvine511]

I agree the impact of the act is different (which may be intentional or not), but is it enough to be a crime in and of itself?

not sure ... seems like one is an act of vandalism, the other is an act of vandalism plus intimidation to a number of individuals.

they seem distinct to me, and one seems like a more serious crime than the other.

 

[MsGiggles]

damn vandals

 

[yolland]

I agree the impact of the act is different (which may be intentional or not), but is it enough to be a crime in and of itself?

I wasn't necessarily trying to make a case for hate crimes legislation per se--more disagreeing with the idea that there was "no difference" between vandalizing a church and spray painting someone's fence. I suppose whether or not that difference constitutes a separate level or category of crime depends on how relevant you see degree of effect on the victim as being to the definition of crime. To me, it is more distressing and traumatic when someone vandalizes our synagogue with swastika graffiti (which has happened twice in the last decade) than when someone sprays negative statements about our university on my office building (which has happened once). Likewise, I would be more distressed if someone spray-painted a swastika on our front gate than if someone spray-painted "assholes" on it (neither of which have happened fortunately).

 

[nbcrusader]

I suppose whether or not that difference constitutes a separate level or category of crime depends on how relevant you see degree of effect on the victim as being to the definition of crime.

The structuring of a criminal justice system that takes into account the impact on the victim is a vast subject. We see glimpses in some aspects of our law - establishing broad principles for consistent application would be quite a task.

 

[yolland]

Out of curiosity...what are some of these "glimpses" of taking that into account you refer to?

I am of course quite ignorant about the conceptual bases of American jurisprudence, which is why I was avoiding specifically advocating for hate crimes legislation one way or the other. But I am curious to know more. How would you describe the distinctiveness of "hate crime" as a concept, relative to the overall thrust of our criminal justice philosophy (which I take it you see as headed somewhere completely different)?

 

[nbcrusader]

We take victim impact testimony in penalty phases - particularly with death penalty cases. The degree to which a crime impacted a victim is a factor a jury can consider.