Are hate crimes more serious than other crimes, requiring greater penalties, or are laws against them an unnecessary addition to the criminal code? Does hate crime legislation infringe on freedom of speech? Should congress extend hate crime statutes to cover more groups or should the federal government leave the issue up to the states?
Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I’m Peter Robinson. Our show today, Hate Crimes. I have with me a couple of able assistants to demonstrate two scenarios.
Scenario One - we’re on a street in any city in America where this man attacks this man, striking him once in the jaw. The crime, assault and battery, and this man should be punished accordingly.
Scenario Two - all the circumstances are identical with these exceptions. This man is now a member of a minority group. We’ll say that he’s Jewish. This man is now a member of a group that hates the minority. We’ll say that he’s a skinhead. The action is identical. This man strikes this man once in the jaw. But is the crime identical, or is it something worse. And should this man receive the same punishment or something more severe.
With us today, three guests. Brian Levin is a professor of law at Cal State San Bernardino. He supports hate crime legislation wholeheartedly. Pam Karlan is a professor of law at Stanford University. She supports hate crime legislation but with reservations. John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley. He opposes hate crime legislation just as wholeheartedly as Brian Levin supports it. The three of them become involved in something of a brawl of their own.
Hate crime statutes - here’s what they do. If I punch you in the nose I get one kind of penalty. If I punch you in the nose because you’re Black or Jewish or fall under certain other kinds of categories, I get a more severe penalty.
In principle, are you in favor of hate crime statutes or opposed to them? John?
John Yoo: I’m opposed to them because I do think that they have the effect of criminalizing thought.
Peter Robinson: Brian.
Brian Levin: In favor of them. They’re actually a cluster of more severe types of crimes and we must punish them and we punish crimes all the time based on context.
Peter Robinson: Pam.
Pam Karlan: Well I guess I’m in the middle. It depends on the crime---
Peter Robinson: Oh, it depends on the one hand, on the other hand--
Pam Karlan: I’m a lawyer.
Peter Robinson: So you’re unwilling to commit yourself in principle.
Pam Karlan: Well, I’m in favor of them in principle. But a lot of them I think are bad ideas.
Peter Robinson: Okay, we will--we’ll tease that out as we go along. Who needs them? Brian you spoke in favor of them. What is the rationale for hate crime statutes?
Brian Levin: I think there are two basic rationales. The first is if you look at all the research that’s out there on hate crime, one of the things that we know is that they’re more severe from a criminological standpoint. They’re much more likely to involve injuries, hospitalization, they’re harder for police to solve. There’s a risk of civil disorder that’s associated with them that’s not associated with other crimes. There’s a greater psychological trauma to victims. All these things from objective standpoint make them a more severe type of offense.
The other thing that I think is important is that there are crimes of discrimination. Discrimination is treating a similarly situated groups of people differently, without a legal or sufficient basis. And because of those two things, they’re more severe, they’re generally direct against people and they’re generally more violent and the discrimination component, which is something the government has an obligation to rid--
Peter Robinson: Two scholars at New York University, James Jacobs, Kimberly Potter, find in a recent study quote - "..In contemporary America there is less prejudice motivated violence against minority groups than in many earlier periods of American history." Hate crime legislation arises roughly speaking the last 15 years at the very time when violence of the kind you have described is becoming less of a problem, or at least or no worse a problem than it has been in earlier periods. Why hate crime legislation now?
Brian Levin: Because it’s still a problem. Still a significant problem. Jim Jacobs is a friend of mine. I think he’s right. We do have less hate crime than we did at the turn of the century when we were lynching Blacks in the streets.
Peter Robinson: Okay, so why do you oppose them? Brian Levin has actually made a couple of assertions. Assertion #1 that hate crimes are in and of themselves worse crimes in part because they tend to produce objectively worse damage, objectively more violence, more threat of civil disorder and so forth. You buy that?
John Yoo: I’m not sure. And the other--the more important question is does our current law enforcement system, is it unable to address these problems. It seems to me that most laws, criminal laws, cover a lot of the things that Brian is worried about. So the thing to ask is there something special going on here which requires a special kind of statute that does bump up against the freedom of thought. Why put it in a context--
Peter Robinson: You’re suggesting a certain economy in the legal code that you don’t want redundancy. You want to keep it clean.
John Yoo: Right. I mean, we shouldn’t have just a humongous criminal code that makes all kinds of things criminal when more general statutes that have a tradition history being applied in Anglo-American [unintelligible] can do their job.
Peter Robinson: You share that reverence through the legal code? You’re willing to take a few--
Pam Karlan: No. I think we punish people all the time for what they think more severely based on what they think. For example, someone who commits an intentional murder gets punished more much severely than someone who commits an accidental homicide.
Peter Robinson: Excellent. Punishing people more severely based on what they think. When does that start to infringe on freedom of thought?
Let me give you two scenarios. Scenario A - this will sound crude and it is crude. It’s horrible. White guy walking down a street, sees a black guy, beats him, shouting racial epithets. Hate crime. Right? I mean whether--I’m asking whether--[cross talk]--but it’s a hate crime.
Pam Karlan: Yeah, I think everyone who would define that as--
Peter Robinson: A hateful crime and a hate crime.
Pam Karlan: Yeah.
Peter Robinson: Scenario B - white guy walking down the street, beats the black guy but doesn’t say a word. Hate crime?
Pam Karlan: Well, it doesn’t have to be an explicit statement that he is a black guy and that’s why I’m hitting him. If for example he hits him because he’s a black guy and knows that’s why he did it and he wouldn’t have hit him if he were white--
Peter Robinson: So the only difference is the thought, in the mind of the perpetrator.
Pam Karlan: That’s correct--
Peter Robinson: Hold on--let me read to you Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes whom you should revere if you don’t--
Pam Karlan: Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
Peter Robinson: Quote … quote … "….if there is any principle of the constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment, more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought. Not free thought for those we agree with, but freedom for thought we hate.
Pam Karlan: Yes, and a man can walk down a street and think no black person should ever be allowed on the street, he’s protected by the First Amendment. He can walk down the street and say, "I want every black person on the street to be dead."--
Peter Robinson: You’re going to let her get away with this--
Pam Karlan: He’s protected by the First Amendment. But if he hits somebody because that person is black, he’s not protected.
Peter Robinson: I think--what difference does it make why he hits the person? Isn’t it battery no matter what?
Pam Karlan: No.
Peter Robinson: Why do you--
Pam Karlan: He’s walking--suppose he’s walking down the street and he thinks to himself, you know, we need to get rid of all of the black people in America--
Peter Robinson: He thinks to himself--
Pam Karlan: …he throws up his hands like that and he hits a black person. That’s not a crime.
Peter Robinson: He thinks to himself. He thinks to himself. You are really Big Brother or Big Sister--Big Person--government--you want to get inside people’s minds. That’s why you want hate crime legislation.
Pam Karlan: No, because it’s the same thing with protection of--
Peter Robinson: John please pile on here. I’m not a lawyer. I need help.
John Yoo: I think you’re overstating it though, because Pam you’re quite right we punish people for what they think. You’re talking about mans right, intention, you have when you commit a crime. But that’s when you intend to do the act, not the beliefs you have that cause you to do the act.
Brian Levin: The law all the time, the law all the time, looks at a variety of things, including motive. It looks at context, issue mentality--
Peter Robinson: Stop there. John put an issue on the table which is that motive, but the law typically punishes, the law previous to hate crime statutes punishes is motive with a clear link between the motive and an act, or a prospective act. What we are talking about here is motive in and of itself.
Pam Karlan: But that’s hate crime without a crime.
Brian Levin: Incorrect. Because look the Supreme Court including the Justice that you clerk for and the 9 to nothing decision--
Peter Robinson: …but wait a minute, there may be no hate crime without a crime but all the crime is, the only thing that makes the hate crime any different from an ordinary crime is the hatred.
Brian Levin: Not true. No, because we have laws that--
Brian Levin: We have laws against threatening the life the of president, or assassinating the president, even though we have State laws for instance, that deal with assault and threats. We’re not saying that that shows political speech. When you couple discrimination with a criminal act, that’s beyond just thought. We were just given an example. We’re not punishing someone because they’re a white supremacist, for instance. We’re punishing them because they intentionally select a victim based on a status, such as race or religion or sexual orientation. That is totally permissible--
Peter Robinson: Let’s examine the argument that hate crimes deserve more severe punishment because of their impact on the victim’s community.
Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, arguing in favor of hate crime legislation. A tax based on hate are quote "…not just on the individual victim, but on the victim’s community and their impact is greater because they send a message of hate…" close quote. At what stage in the United States did it become illegal to send messages? Even hateful messages.
John Yoo: Right. And I saw Deputy Attorney General Holder at that testimony testify too. And he has this theory of group harms. Hate crimes ought to be punished more vigorously because of victim, because he’s part of a group, suffers somehow more than the group suffers more and that in itself is some kind of stand on the freedom of thought. I mean this is I think Ron’s quite counter to the idea that we have an American constitution and society that you are an individual and the law treats you--uh, treats you as an individual. This kind of law that we’re talking about passing these days, treats people differently because they’re members of different kinds of groups, rather than their presence as an individual--
Peter Robinson: Hold on. Hold on. Medieval England. You steal from a peasant, you get a slap on the wrist. You steal from a Lord, you get hanged. Not good, right? The punishment varies according to the status of the victim. [Jim Crow South], rape a black woman, you get one kind of penalty. Rape a white woman, you’re very likely to be hanged. Again, not good. The law discriminates based on the status of the victim. The law enshrines a certain class system in the case of Medieval England and racism in the case of Jim Crow South and now hate crime legislation does exactly the same thing.
Brian Levin: Peter you’re missing a fundamental point, and that is the law applies equally, for instance, based on race. In other words, it’s not just people who attack blacks are going to--
Peter Robinson: You want them--the US criminal code based on race--
Brian Levin: No, no. I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is the law, as long as it’s equally applied. As long as a black person who acts out of racial animist attacking white person will be punished the same way, the law is constitutional and not in violation of our doctrine regarding equal protection. But the criminal law, all the time makes distinctions among classes and people. Raping a 9 year is not the same thing as raping a 29 year, as horrible as all those crimes are.
We have laws for instance that say if you attack a police officer. We have a variety of laws. Burning a church is not the same thing as burning a barn. And many conservatives voted for a church arson statute. The law all the time looks at a variety of factors, including the type of individual and the context in which a crime takes place.
Peter Robinson: Now you said you were in the middle. He’s overstating the case somewhere, isn’t he? Or are you buying all that?
Pam Karlan: Well, I think--no, I don’t buy all of it and I certainly don’t buy the group harm notion.
Peter Robinson: Why not?
Pam Karlan: Because I think that all crime has a group effect. Just a regular mugging makes all people afraid to go out on the street and we understand that. And that’s what the criminal law takes into account generally. And that’s why things are a crime rather than a tort.
Peter Robinson: You’ll agree with that? You agree with that too?
Brian Levin: No. I disagree with her completely on that.
Peter Robinson: You don’t deny that a racial attack--a racially motivated attack on a black person sends a message of prejudice and bigotry to Black Americans.
Pam Karlan: Of course--no--
Peter Robinson: …you don’t deny that obviously--
Pam Karlan: ... of course it sends that, what I’m just saying is that--
Peter Robinson: But that is not--
Pam Karlan: …that’s not why I think--
Peter Robinson: That is an inadequate basis for legislation.
Pam Karlan: The correct basis is to say that this crime is worse for the victim as well.
Brian Levin: Oh no. Pam. Pam. We have laws, for instance, give you an example, there was an 8 year old kid who was a witness to a murder and he, himself, was murdered, out in Connecticut. That was not just a crime against that child, it was a crime against our pluralistic democracy and our system of justice.
Peter Robinson: Oh Brian every crime is a crime against e pluribus unum for goodness sake--
Pam Karlan: But Brian, let me put it this way, I consider something like the dragging death in Texas. I consider that a hate crime that harms me but it’s not because I’m black.
Brian Levin: With all due respect to you, you’re not the only person that makes that decision.
Pam Karlan: What I’m trying to say here is that the reason why hate crimes are worse crimes in someway is not because of the messages they send simply to the group of which the victim is a member--
Peter Robinson: Hold on. Go ahead.
Pam Karlan: It’s because the message they send to people generally about the acceptability or at least the lack of special concern for this kind of discrimination.
Peter Robinson: You’re shifting your basis a little--you started to say the hate crimes are worse because it’s worse for the victim?
Pam Karlan: And for Society as a whole. It’s not because it’s worse for the group of which the victim is a member.
Peter Robinson: Okay. Okay. Hang on now--
Psychological injury? Does that justify hate crime statutes? I get punched in the nose. My nose is broken and it bleeds. I get punched in a burglary, okay. My nose is broken and bleeds. I get punched in the nose because somebody objects to white guys. My nose gets broken and bleeds and I feel worse about it somehow. I feel insulted and degraded.
Pam Karlan: That’s correct.
Peter Robinson: You are willing to pass criminal legislation based on subjective emotions like that? All the guy made me do was feel bad. Come on.
Pam Karlan: A huge number--a huge number, but look a huge number of crimes are based on the subjective belief of the victim. That after all is the difference between rape and consentual sex, is the victim didn’t want to have the sex in a rape case.
Peter Robinson: But didn’t--
Pam Karlan: So it’s the subjective beliefs of the victim that made rape a crime.
Peter Robinson: Whoa, whoa, hold on a second. So let’s try another little scenario here. This time the guy doesn’t punch me in the nose and make me bleed. All he does this time is say something that makes me feel bad. So now we should legislate against that.
Pam Karlan: No. That’s not a crime.
Peter Robinson: Why not? Why not?
Pam Karlan: Because that’s freedom of speech.
Brian Levin: That’s right.
Pam Karlan: I can walk up to you and say--
Peter Robinson: I’m not the only one who finds that one--
Brian Levin: No. No. I mean, this--I mean what’s going on here is that--
Peter Robinson: Go ahead John, carry this one for the moment will you, please.
John Yoo: Hate crimes requires you to make this exact kind of analysis to where you say, oh it’s suddenly sentiment that we can punish versus freedom of speech. It’s a hard line to draw and you’re trying to--
Pam Karlan: But I think it’s an easy line to draw.
John Yoo: No, it’s not. It’s a very hard one to draw and you’re threatening to have a chilling effect on people’s expressions and thoughts by trying to come so close to the line--
Pam Karlan: But only on the expressions and thoughts when the people also commit something that we all can see--
John Yoo: But let me--let me--
Peter Robinson: Let John do a little throw in here--
John Yoo: Suppose you have a law against theft, right. Say you get five years if you steal something. If your steal something because you’re Communist, you don’t like free--you don’t like capital and private property, you get ten years. And that you might say oh that’s a sentiments involved you have to examine that belief and the punishment. That is a freedom of thoughts. Only because he happened to have a certain ideological belief that your punishing greater than--
Pam Karlan: Oh and I absolutely agree. You can’t punish a Communist more severely for committing a crime than--
John Yoo: Okay, take a white supremacist. Someone attacks someone and he’s black. And then someone who’s a white supremacist attacks someone because he’s black and he picked him because he’s a white supremacist. You want to punish the latter case more forcefully than the former case. I don’t see how that is not infringing on the freedom of thought.
Pam Karlan: Because--
Peter Robinson: And neither to do I. Go ahead, show ‘em why.
Pam Karlan: Because the white supremacist is free to go out and rape, rob, murder and pillage as long as he’s an equal opportunity rapist, robber, murderer and pillager and he’ll be punished under the general criminal law.
John Yoo: He’ll be punished anyway. Under the general criminal law for his actions--
Brian Levin: But the Supreme Court--
John Yoo: You want to punish him more because of--
Peter Robinson: The only thing that makes it worse is his motive.
John Yoo: Right.
Brian Levin: So what--
Peter Robinson: You are punishing motive.
John Yoo: It’s not even motive. No, it’s not even motive.
Pam Karlan: But that’s the same thing for an intentional homicide versus an--
Brian Levin: Oh, Peter, so Crystal Nacht to you. Crystal Nacht the night of neo-Nazi rampages in Germany 1938 are merely the sum of all the assaults and vandalisms that took place. Of course not. You have to look at context and one of the things I think is important to recognize is as the Supreme Court has said, discrimination is something that the government has a unique obligation to eradicate.
Pam Karlan: Peter, think about sentencing. For example, if there are a lot of laws where’s there an indeterminate sentence, or there’s a range of sentences that can be given. The Federal Systems says for example you can take into account that the victim was particularly vulnerable. So for example, if you commit a crime against an elderly and unsophisticated person you can be punished more harshly for example, security is fraud.
John Yoo: You think that’s a good thing?
Pam Karlan: Yes, I do.
John Yoo: You think it’s a proper policy--
Pam Karlan: Yes, I think that’s a proper policy.
John Yoo: --as opposed to the fact that [low] sentencing guideline chart lets you do that.
Pam Karlan: Yeah. I think that’s a proper policy to say this was a particularly vulnerable victim.
Peter Robinson: You don’t?
John Yoo: No.
Peter Robinson: Why not?
John Yoo: I don’t see what it has to do with the deterring crime. I mean the person who commit the crime--
Pam Karlan: Well you’re more to commit the crime successfully against a vulnerable victim--
John Yoo: He beat up an elderly person versus beat up you. I think they should go to jail for the same amount of time. If someone killed an old guy and killed me I think the guy, if it’s proper, should be executed in both cases.
Brian Levin: [You’re dead ringer on deterrence].
John Yoo: I don’t think the status of the victim should make a difference.
Peter Robinson: Next question--if we’re going to have hate crime statutes, what groups should they cover?
Federal statutes already recognizes hate crimes committed on the basis of race, religion or national origin. Congress is now considering expanding the legis-statutes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. You’re for that?
Brian Levin: Absolutely.
Peter Robinson: Hold on. Disability? I mean I can see the argument. I can at least see the argument for hate crimes based on race. But do you really think that people attack people because they’re on crutches or on wheelchairs. Isn’t that a delusion? Doesn’t that make a mockery of the seriousness of discrimination that you’re trying--do you really think that’s a problem?
Brian Levin: Yeah, considering all you have to do is look at the case files. There’s a case just filed this summer relating for a mentally challenged young adult who was tortured by eight thugs--
Peter Robinson: What on?
Brian Levin: Because he was vulnerable and because he was--
Peter Robinson: Because he was vulnerable. So you don’t need hate. Nobody hated him because he was mentally disabled.
Brian Levin: We’re not punishing the hate, we’re punishing the discrimination that this was person was intentionally--
Peter Robinson: Excuse me it’s called a hate crime.
John Yoo: That’s a really fine line.
Brian Levin: That’s a misnomer. There are many types of things that--
Peter Robinson: Here’s what I think is going on. Let me put this to you and to you.
Brian Levin: I don’t think that you should be able to criminalize bad thoughts or offensive speech. In fact the constitution says you can’t. However, when you intentionally discriminate, when you select a crime victim based on their race, religion or disability, absolutely. You can punish the act without necessary punishing the underlying thought.
John Yoo: Anybody who happens to be weak in society. Anyway you think is vulnerable which is the phrase--
Brian Levin: Legislators have the right to make these determinations.
John Yoo: I’m asking you. Do you think you should have a crime that punishes people more vigorously because they attacked someone you think is vulnerable in some way.
Brian Levin: Absolutely.
Peter Robinson: You're willing to go ahead and expand it to include disability?
Pam Karlan: Well part of the problem is that I have difficulties with the federalization of criminal law.
Peter Robinson: We'll come to that next. I promise we will. Go ahead.
Pam Karlan: Right—and so for me—
Peter Robinson: Let's just say suppose it were State that we're considering expanding the definition of hate crime to include disability.
Pam Karlan: Yes, I think so. Because there aren't a lot of people who are victims of crimes where they're chosen or singled out because they are in a wheelchair. I don't think. But there are a lot of cases, for example, mentally retarded and mentally ill people.
Peter Robinson: But because of vulnerability, surely not because hates or is bigoted against the retarded or—
Pam Karlan: Hate crime is another way of saying a crime of which the motive is the status of the victim.
Peter Robinson: Let me put it to you Brian and to you Pam. Hate crime legislation appears about 15 years ago. I would suggest, at least for the purposes of eliciting a response, that what's really going on is not an effort to stamp out discrimination. What's really going on is an effort by politicians to carry favor with this politically correct group and that politically correct group and to invade the criminal codes of the States and the Federal Government with political correctness and politics. And that's the real practical motive behind this proliferation of hate crime statues. Don't you think that's it?
Pam Karlan: No. I disagree. I think it's part of a very different development which is over time we've decided first we should stop discrimination in schools on the basis of race. And we moved from that to discrmination on the basis of race in parks and public accommodations and private housing market and employment. And then we understood race wasn't the only reason why people were disciminated against. So we extended that to things like gender and national origin and religion. And then we understood that those aren't the only sources of discrimination as well and so in many places we've extended it to sexual orientation. And now we've decided—
Peter Robinson: So what you have is a compressive awakening of America to—
Pam Karlan: To the idea that discrimination against people on the basis of their status is wrong.
Peter Robinson: John.
John Yoo: [It's the identity in politics]. The timing is actually quite exquisite. Because you see the emergence of identity politics in which groups try to win some bog victories by achieving certain kinds of legislation. That's fine when it involves pork-barrel politics. But your talking about criminal law here, and the criminal law involves putting people in jail for long periods of time. I don't mind—
Peter Robinson: Last topic Most States already have hate crime legislation. Why does the Federal Government need to get involved?
We have only 8 States out of the 50 that do not have any hate crime statutes at the moment. We have 21 States with anti-biased laws covering sexual orientation, 22 States cover gender, 21 States cover disability already and now Congress, as I mentioned a moment ago, is considering expanding the Federal hate crime statutes.
Now isn't there at least an argument that Congress ought to confine itself to legislating in the criminal code matters that are national crimes. That is to say counterfeiting, treason and that kind of thing. Pam, is that the argument you would make?
Pam Karlan: Yeah, I mean, I would go beyond counterfeiting and treason to say crimes that involve interstate transportation of dangerous substances, crimes that can't be prosecuted locally because they're occurring nationwide. A nationwide conspiracy to violate—
Peter Robinson: So you're in favor of hate crime statutes in principle. But they ought to be a matter of State criminal law, not federal.
Pam Karlan: Well, they could be a matter of federal criminal law if they involve, for example, an attempt by someone to deny somebody a federally guaranteed right.
John Yoo: Which already exists.
Peter Robinson: That's already on the books.
Pam Karlan: Right. And that's existed since the 1870's. Since 1871—
Brian Levin: Only for conspiracies.
John Yoo: No. Trying to prevent somebody from voting is a crime.
Pam Karlan: Yeah. Right. And so I think, if for example—
John Yoo: Because of their race.
Pam Karlan: Yeah. The 15th amendment is enforced in part against private individuals and that seems fine.
Peter Robinson: All right, let's build this little mountain here. You're opposed to them in principle. You're in favor of them but only at the State level except in unusual and narrow cases.
Pam Karlan: That’s correct.
Peter Robinson: And you're in favor of this federal expansion of hate crime statues? You want them incorporated in the US Criminal Code?
Brian Levin: Absolutely.
Peter Robinson: How come?
Brian Levin: Because the Federal Government has an obligation to rid this society of violent discrimination and I'm not just dealing with this out of abstraction. One of the things—one of the main purposes of the Federal Government is to come in in instances where's there's been a failure at the local level. And it's not just an abstraction. I've represented hate victims who did not get help from local authorities and who's last resort happens to be the Federal Government.
Peter Robinson: John.
John Yoo: The point is that you want to make it that the Federal Government should act whenever the State governments don't treat someone the way they ought to be treated.
Brian Levin: No. You need an option.
John Yoo: That may be—
Brian Levin: We need the option—
John Yoo: You need the option.
Peter Robinson: Let John make his point.
John Yoo: If that were the actual case, you would have an enormous expansion in the powers in the breadth of the Federal Government. The states may not prosecute lots of people. That may not be a great thing but they make all kinds of decisions why not to prosecute. You want to make every one of those circumstances a federal case because you're saying whenever someone isn't treated right by State authorities then the Federal Government can step in. That's not the understanding that we've had of the Federal system of government.
Peter Robinson: You don't buy that argument. They subscribe to you on this point.
Pam Karlan: That's right.
John Yoo: Oh, for the record, she agreed with me once.
Peter Robinson: Yes, yes. I feel like Henry Kissinger here.
Brian Levin: It seems to be me then both you—the history book in a vacuum where we've seen cases, for instances, right up through the 60's where we had members of law enforcements—
Peter Robinson: Yeah, but it doesn't deny that the States screw up all the time.
Pam Karlan: No, I think—see the thing is part of the question is how you go about solving discriminatory law enforcement on the local level and my own belief is that the way you do that is impact through political and franchisement of minorities. One of the reasons why in Texas, James Bird's killers got prosecuted in the way that they wouldn't have been prosecuted in the 1940's is black people and Latino's in Texas now vote and the DA understands. You can't get away with this.
John Yoo: The prosecutors went after those people with the full vigor of the law.
Peter Robinson: Counsellors Pam, Brian and John, thank you very much.
Unison Thank you.
Peter Robinson: Hate crimes is one of those issues it's likely to start a fight all by itself. Three intelligent well-spoken guests and three different, very deeply felt opinions. Can't we all just get along? I'm Peter Robinson, thanks for joining us.