Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Hate crimes legislation is a well-intentioned mistake
Adding provisions to include Gays and Lesbians among the groups protected by special hate crimes legislation, as has now been done by Congress, would be a great idea, if hate crimes legislation itself was a good idea, but it's not. Hate crime laws undermine the fundamental purpose of any healthy system of justice by using the penal code to address social issues instead of punishing those accused of committing particular crimes.
While the problems which they address are generally real, and in the case of Gay and Lesbian Americans who face specific dangers on a regular basis simply because they are who they are, such problems are all too real. Nonetheless, such legislation is not the way to correct this problem.
Punishing individuals for what they believe and not what they have done is a scary precedent which avoids the real cultural challenges we face and potentially devalues the significance of crimes not rising to the level of a hate crime. Just ask the victims' families.
Does it matter to victims' families why they are burying their loved one, or visiting them in a hospital? Of course not. And only those who seek to politicize a particular crime would distinguish between crime victims based on their race, religion, or sexual identity.
And while hate crimes laws are not a good idea, the underlying problems which give rise to them must be addressed. Here are two possible ways to do so without undermining the cornerstone notion that we punish acts not thoughts.
First, prosecutors could avail themselves of terrorism laws which do acknowledge the special severity of a crime whose intent was to do more than harm the individual or individuals immediately affected. This is not the same as a hate crime which punishes criminals for their emotions, and entirely in line with our penal code which already acknowledges that intent, can and should be a factor in determining the severity of a crime.
Unlike hate crimes legislation, the issue here is not the special treatment given to any part of the population, but the ability of prosecutors to prove that the intent of the criminals was to cause harm, specifically psychic terror beyond those they physically hurt, or to advance a political cause through violence. Such terrorism prosecutions could be put on against those who attack schools as much as those who attack gay people. The issue would be the scope of the damage they did, not the special status of those against whom they acted.
Secondly, we should closely monitor prosecution rates for those who attack especially vulnerable members of our society. Those who attack them should not be punished more harshly than they would be had they attacked a "regular" person, but neither should those who attack the more vulnerable or less popular among us anticipate an easier journey through the justice system. Criminals need to know that if they commit a crime against a "less popular" member of the community, it makes no difference - they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Bottom line, there should be one law for all people and altering that principle is not the way to address the fact that sometimes it does not work out that way. The way to address that problem is with vigorous prosecution of all criminals, regardless of who they hurt.
If, and, when the rates of prosecution or terms of sentence against those who are guilty of attacking the more vulnerable among us, begin to differ from those leveled against the entire criminal population, it is we who have to be cautious. When that happens, the issue may well be the hate we feel, not the hate the criminals feel.
By
Brad Hirschfield
|
October 27, 2009; 7:50 AM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Just as easy (and hard) to be good (and bad) without God |
Next: God sets the standard for goodness
Posted by: Alex511 | October 28, 2009 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you ONWAPO
By writing your viewpoint, provided the reader can understand your writing, you manage to not only prove the need for such legislation. But you also prove just how completely clueless many in the world are.
I must admit I could not help picture a small child screaming something over and over again in the corner while they throw a tantrum. A helpful hit is to copy your comments into a word processor program to help you with all those errors.
Posted by: MarkinTX | October 28, 2009 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My biggest point is that Hate Crimes legislation was meant to allow for Justice to prevail where there would normally be none.
Examples.
A building belonging to (insert group) is burned by arson. The local law enforcement despite numerous leads choose to not pursue them siting lack of staff. Now it could be they are trying to down play or they are simply so short staffed they cannot manage the case.
Now this example is being very generous and not taking into account outright abuse of ingoring claims of assaults or worse and simply hearing them say. Well, that had it coming. This still happens today and not solely to LGBT members.
Think back to when race was the issue in the southern states. There are still unsolved cases today of crimes that happened during that era. But despite hate crimes legislation do you see members of the KKK being dragged out from their marches for preaching their hate? Wiccans (Witchcraft) to Christians is still against teachings. Are people being dragged from the pulpit for preaching against that?
Posted by: MarkinTX | October 27, 2009 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fr markintx:
>I am afraid that you are missing the point of Hate Crimes Legislation entirely. The primary function of this is not about punishment that a person would receive. Instead this is about making sure that Justice happens. The point of Hate Crimes Legislation is when an agency is Unwilling or Unable to prosecute a crime, the federal goverment can offer assistance. ...
Exactly right, hirschfeld did indeed completely miss the point. How would HE feel if a sibling, child, or close friend who was glbt was beaten or MURDERED because of their sexual orientation? I would hope he wouldn't say that hate crime legislation is a "well intentioned 'mistake'". One would hope he'd be calling for it. My wife and I have vivid memories of being verbally harassed and SPAT UPON by Ukranian "Christians" at local Pride events. These "Christians" are egged on by their so-called "ministers" and "churches" to do this. It's abhorrent.
Posted by: Alex511 | October 27, 2009 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am afraid that you are missing the point of Hate Crimes Legislation entirely. The primary function of this is not about punishment that a person would receive. Instead this is about making sure that Justice happens. The point of Hate Crimes Legislation is when an agency is Unwilling or Unable to prosecute a crime, the federal goverment can offer assistance.
How easy we as a society forget the history where law enforcement either turns a blind eye to acts of assault in rural areas to crimes of this nature. Or in areas where crimes of this nature happen on such a large level that those agencies that do try to enforce are simply overwhelmed. While I am willing to supply examples of this I hope that simply pointing this out is enough.
Posted by: MarkinTX | October 27, 2009 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fr onwapo:
>...Note: ALL County's in America Already have "HATe CRIME UNITS" [Squads, like Forensics] to deal with any
Deliberate Antimosity against NON-Straights, as well as People of COLOR or Foreign Accents .... etc.....
But they were NOT being enforced, and you know it. Now that President Obama has signed the Matthew Shepard bill (hooray, hooray for a GOOD President after 8 long years of dumbya!!!!!!!)), they MUST be enforced. This is a great day for everyone!