that “hate speech” is protected by thernFirst Amendment, the Supreme Courtrnin June upheld the constitutionahty of arnWisconsin sentence-enhancement law,rnthe principal kind of criminal statute forrndealing with crimes involving bias.rnThese laws typically allow judges or juriesrnto mete out a harsher penalty to a personrnconvicted of an offense deemed motivatedrnby prejudice. Twenty-six statesrnnow have sentence-enhancement lawsrnon the books.rnChief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion inrnthe Wisconsin case seemed to gloss overrnthe difficulty of ascertaining a defendant’srnstate of mind, noting that judgesrnhave traditionally taken motive into accountrnwhen deciding on a sentence.rnThough the High Court’s decision wasrnunanimous, the contentiousness of thernissue was reflected in the fact that, whilernthe A.C.L.U. supported the Wisconsinrnlaw, that organization’s Ohio affiliaternhied a brief on the opposite side. (An appealrnby Ohio of a court ruling on its biasrncrime law is now before the Justices.)rnThe Court’s decision can also be expectedrnto provide a boost to a federalrnsentence-enhancement law currentlyrnpending before Congress.rnGiven the apparent increase in recentrnyears of crimes involving bias, the rash ofrnnew legislation is understandable. Butrnwhether they are criminal or civil laws,rnbias crime statutes are a bad idea. InrnNew York City the liberal-dominated cityrngovernment has shown little interest inrncombating garden-variety muggings,rnrapes, armed robberies, and murders.rnLegislators would do well to concernrnthemselves with mandating harsher,rnswifter, and more certain punishmentrnfor all types of serious offenses, instead ofrnith cheap grandstanding on the dubiousrnissue of bias crimes.rn-Richard IrvingrnPUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE is thernlatest rage among law professors with arnradical agenda. It challenges privaternownership of natural resources and believesrnthe state has the right to claim titlernto those resources in the name of thernpeople. As Professor Robert I. Reis at thernUniversity of Buffalo School of Lawrnnotes, this elastic doctrine, though it begrudginglyrnacknowledges private propertyrnrights, also points toward their elimination;rn”It might be said that as thernpublic trust doctrine expands to includerncontemporary environmental and socialrninterests within the scope of its purview,rnthe correlative private rights or futurernprivatization of rights would be precludedrnor significantly diminished.” (Italicsrnadded.)rnProfessor Reis compares this doctrinernto navigational servitude cases, in whichrnpublic trust property is “not protectedrnagainst a taking [by the state].” In therninterest of protecting the environment, arnlandowner’s right to just compensationrnfor property offered under the due processrnclause could therefore be dismissed,rnsince “the right of the people to the fullrnbenefit, use and enjoyment of nationalrnand natural resource treasures as trustsrnfor the People” transcends private propertyrnguarantees. Here in shameless fashionrnis an attack on the Fifth Amendmentrnto the Constitution and itsrnprovision that life, liberty, and propertyrncannot be denied without due process.rnWhat Reis and his radical colleaguesrnhave done is define property rightsrnright out of existence. Like the UtopianrnSocialists who argued that all propertyrnbelongs to the people—meaning therngovernment—this newly formulatedrndoctrine rests on the belief that publicrnauthorities are the best protectors againstrnenvironmental damage. To protect thernnatural bounty we should not hesitate torneliminate private property.rnThis doctrine in effect overturns arnthousand years of English CommonrnLaw. Despite what it says, the state assumesrna dubious authority when it confiscatesrnland without just compensation.rnIn the Adirondack region of New York,rnthe state has already acted arbitrarily. Ifrnthe state has the power to alienate privaternproperty, then private property guaranteesrnare meaningless and the veryrnConstitution is rendered nugatory.rnIt is hard to believe that as the ColdrnWar and the ideological battle betweenrnpublic property and private property thatrncharacterized this struggle are ending onrnthe world stage, the same ideologicalrnbattle is about to be fought in our domesticrncourts. This time it is not communismrnvs. capitalism, but environmentalismrnvs. the efficacy of privaternproperty. Yet the net result is the same:rnprivate property is under siege, this timernby the self-appointed saviors of a pristinernenvironment.rnIt may sound as if public trust doctrinernrepresents the will of the people. Therndoctrine’s name has a Rousseauean ringrnto it. But as in the phrases “power to thernPeople” and “Peoples’ Republic,” whenrnthe word “people” is capitalized, individualsrnshould tremble. What it usuallyrnmeans is that someone wants to erodernindividual rights and deprive people ofrntheir hard-earned rewards.rn—Herbert Londonrn” E Y E FOR EYE, tooth for tooth, handrnfor hand, foot for foot, burning for burning,rnwound for wound, stripe for stripe,”rnsays the Holy Bible (Exodus 21:24-25).rnNo criminal law ever written is simplerrnand more appropriate than these ancientrnHebrew verses. Similarly, under Islamicrnlaw someone caught stealing can havernhis hand cut off. In the Old West, horsernthieves were hanged from the nearestrntree. During World War II, French womenrnwho slept with German soldiers hadrntheir heads shaven by the Resistance.rnAnd so on.rnIn the United States, persons who arernconvicted of such felonies as rape, murder,rnarson, embezzlement, burglary, drugrndealing, extortion, child molesting, aggravatedrnassault, etc., are more oftenrnthan not back on the streets within arnfew months, whereupon they frequentlyrnrepeat their crimes. The jails are jammedrnwith criminals, and even the most liberalrnstudents of crime have all but given uprnon rehabilitation. Clearly, our presentrnsystem of criminal justice is not workingrnvery well.rnIn order to expedite things and save arngreat deal of money, I have a few suggestionsrnfor more fitting punishments,rnwhich, though moderately cruel, are certainlyrnnot unfair. Instruction in thesernpunishments should be made part of therncurriculum in high schools, and legal executions,rnmutilations, and other punishmentsrnshould be shown on TV as part ofrnthe evening news.rnOne, persons who kill people (byrnshooting, knifing, bludgeoning, strangling,rnsuffocating, etc.) during a burglaryrnor holdup shall be shot by a firing squadrnof the victim’s relatives and neighbors onrnthe day following conviction in the streetrnnearest the place where the crime wasrncommitted. TV coverage is mandatory.rnTwo, rapists (first offenders) will havernone testicle surgically removed. Secondrnoffenders will lose the second testiclernand run a gauntlet of 100 friends of thernvictim armed with baseball bats. Thisrncould be done at Yankee Stadium or thernMeadowlands.rnThree, embezzlers, crooked politicians,rnand other white-collar criminalsrnOCTOBER 1993/7rnrnrn