Why "Racism" Isn't Required for a Hate Crimes Conviction

Blacks have conditioned whites to believe that "racism" is bad, but "hidden racism" is less bad. The fact is that ALL antagonistic color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior is suspect and potentially corrosive to individuals, relationships and society.

"Racism" is systemic color-aroused denigration, subjugation, exploitation based on skin-color and ethnicity, right? So, if it's not demonstrably systemic, like a white person calling a stranger the
"N" word on the street, then that's NOT as bad as "racism" because it's not systemic, right?

It is entirely possible for a public act to be blatantly color-aroused and therefore suspect to most people without the same act being obviously "racist" to those same people. And so when you try to convince people that everything must be "racist" before it rises to the level of "blatancy" that requires action, YOU, YOU are setting the bar so high that you will, most times, be unable to convince others that there is sufficient cause for action.

It is obvious that Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama were aroused by the color of Barack Obama's skin. They explicitly referenced the color of Barack Obama's skin as the basis for their rationale. So, the remarks were color-aroused. However, they are only "racist" if they were unjustified, right? So, if a person believes that they were partly justified, that person has to reject your argument that the remarks were racist. Certainly, the person cannot form an opinion as to whether the remarks were "racist" until the determine whether the remarks were justified.

Well, what if criminal law worked on the same principle, particularly hate laws? Certainly the defendant called the victim, a stranger, the "N" word just before the stranger shot the victim. That's enough for a hate crime conviction, because the defendant's verbal acts specifically referenced the victim's skin color in the act of committing the crime.

But, what if the standard were higher? What if, in addition to proving that the "N" word was used, you had to prove that this particular use of the "N" word was "racist"? Well, then you'd have to have expert testimony on the definition of "racism" and on the fact that "racism" motivated this use of the "N" word.

Would that reduce the likelihood that anyone would be convicted under hate crime statutes? You bet it would! Criminal laws have to be sufficiently clear to let the defendant know what is forbidden. Is the term "racism" sufficiently clearly to enough of society that forbidding "racism" would forbid all "racist behavior"? Of course not! That's what we spend so much time arguing about!

Criminal law makes simple evidence of color-aroused anger sufficient to increase the penalty applied. Change the burden of proof to "racism" and thousands of people would go free who would otherwise have been convicted.