Crime Laws Named After People Are Generally Bad Ideas

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 05:21:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Radley Balko, Senior Editor of Reason, takes on one of my pet peeves in an interview in the Atlantic: crime laws named after individuals. He says (linking to this TChris Post):

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: If you're naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it's probably a bad law. It means you're legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That's generally not how good policy is made.

Or, as I like to put it, Let us not enact laws out of grief and passion, or in response to a singular criminal event, however horrific it might be. Cooler heads are needed where our fundamental liberties are at stake. Examples: The Laci and Connor Law. Megan's Law. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.

I'm also not thrilled with Attorney General Eric Holder's proposal today for a federal hate crimes law, for reasons well noted by Colorado Independent.

< Reasons to Legalize "Hard" Drugs | R.I. Legislature Overrides Gov. Veto on Marijuana Dispensaries >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Crime Laws Named After People Are Generally Bad Ideas | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

wow (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 05:28:34 PM EST

"We will not tolerate murder, or the threat of violence, masquerading as political activism,"
Holder said that to stop such violence, Congress should pass an updated version of hate crimes legislation in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability or sexual orientation.

seems to good to be true somehow.

which I guess (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 05:44:19 PM EST

means it probably is. I agree with much of what you said on this but I would still like to see sexual orientation added to the list.


Is murder for (none / 0) (#3)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:18:30 PM EST

hate worse than generic murder?


Since when have we moved to strict liability? (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:22:11 PM EST

Is murder (none / 0) (#6)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:58:52 PM EST

for hate worse than generic murder?


: It might be (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 07:14:07 PM EST

I'd say that there's a terrorism component in hate murder that makes the defendant more morally culpable.

: Not worse or less worse, but (none / 0) (#9)
by masslib on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:07:43 AM EST

it can lead somewhere that an individual act of murder doesn't. Call it movement murder. Think the holocaust. Or this country's history of lynchings. I understand why there would be separate treatment.

As long as we have hate crimes (none / 0) (#5)
by nycstray on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:26:36 PM EST

they might as well add gender to the list also.


: Could rape then (none / 0) (#10)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:05:44 AM EST

be a hate crime? The victims are chosen because of their gender.

probably so, (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 09:49:44 PM EST

It means you're legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That's generally not how good policy is made.

but damn, it makes a great sound bite during campaigns!