One of the perennial issues in politics is hate crime legislation. Every once in a while we hear of a brutal attack against a racial or sexual minority. Almost instinctively, the politicians rush to capitalize on it by proclaiming the need for stronger hate crime laws. This sort of legislation is routinely in the news and discussed at both the federal and state levels.
Hate crime laws are designed to target ideas. In this respect, they are unconstitutional abridgments of free speech. After all, the only reason crimes are enhanced is because of the hateful views of the assailant. I don't defend hate, but I defend the freedom to hate. When you make a hateful belief the sole justification for more punishment, then clearly the purpose of the legislation is to target ideas. This is criminalization of the mind.
Those who defend hate crime laws say, "Yes, you're free to hate, but with these crimes, people act on that hate." Well, that's why we have the underlying punishments for assault, murder, etc. in the first place. Clearly you can't act on hate (or jealousy or greed or other motivations) in a way depriving others of their rights; but that is why we punish people when and only when they do violate the rights of others. Tacking on the extra punishment for hate is merely an indirect attempt to ban hate by punishing ideas which are perfectly legal to have and express. This is unacceptable in a so-called free society.
Hate crime laws also violate equal protection. Let's consider two hypothetical cases. In case one, a black man (A) seriously attacks another black man (B), solely because of past grievances. The A-B crime results in an attempted murder charge. In case two, a white man (C) commits the same serious attack against a different black man (D), solely because of racial hatred. The C-D crime also results in an attempted murder charge. The crimes in these two cases were exactly the same (only the motivations were different), and a society that values equal protection should punish them both the same.
But because of hate crime legislation, case two may result in more punishment for the assailant. We may think this is okay because the crime in case two just seems worse. But does a man somehow bleed more when he is attacked because of race? Of course not. You may object: what about the fact that D was attacked because of race - given our country's history of racism, isn't that more traumatizing and harmful than being attacked because of some past grievance? The fact is, we don't know, and the law doesn't care. It just blindly assumes that a crime motivated by race, sexual orientation, or other demographic features is automatically worse than the same crime committed for other reasons.
If racial or gay hatred were enough of a reason to punish someone more than would otherwise be the case, we could just shut down the Klan and Westboro Baptist Church because they convey the very ideas which result in extra punishment. It's legal to hurt people's feelings, and yet hate crime laws are designed to punish more because of the hateful messages conveyed by a crime? This doesn't add up.
Finally - and perhaps most damaging to the proponents of hate crime legislation - these laws are absolutely unnecessary. Why not just enhance punishments for all murders, all assaults, and all other crimes? There is zero reason to only punish some murders, some assaults, and some crimes, just to make a point that hatred is wrong. The government could easily tack on extra punishments for all aggressors; the only reason it doesn't is to advance a political agenda or get someone re-elected because he pandered to a certain demographic. Unacceptable.
The bottom line is: if you believe in hate crime laws, you do not believe in free speech, equal protection, or justice. Those who advocate such laws are simply un-American.
Comments
Really? "simply un-American"? That's going a little too far, I'd say. I'm not going to pretend I know any empirical evidence for or against hate crime legislation, but wouldn't its power as a deterrent be just as useful (even if it is marginal, at best).
Would you be behind banning hate-speech (re your paragraph on Westboro Baptist Church)?
Kevin, I think what he is getting at is that we have no right to make a police-state that goes after thought-crimes. We don't live in the "Minority Report" reality...yet. Our Constitution protects racist idiots and wonderful kind people alike.
Whoops. You make a good point but fail to take into consideration a few things:
1) Criminal law is not about the punishment as much as it is about being a deterrent to crime.
2) Murder charges are based on degrees of murder - the degree is determined by... what? Motive! Yay motive!
3) Hate crimes aren't about a crime against a person as much as they are a crime against a community. For example, many of these crimes are committed to send a clear message to the suspect class that they are not wanted in "that area." A recent crime in New York was a bias crime. The two victims, men, were attacked because of perceived homosexuality and their Latino heritage. The attackers were screaming things indicating the Latinos should go back to where they came from and "f-gs" weren't welcome in that neighborhood. One of the two men died. Perhaps ironically, they were not gay - they were brothers.
As to shutting down the Klan and Westboro - consider this: Hate crimes legislation doesn't prevent one from preaching that gays (or other suspect classes) are going to hell, it prohibits one from attempting to send them there.
"Hate crimes legislation doesn't prevent one from preaching that gays (or other suspect classes) are going to hell, it prohibits one from attempting to send them there."
Good thing I actually addressed this:
"Those who defend hate crime laws say, "Yes, you're free to hate, but with these crimes, people act on that hate." Well, that's why we have the underlying punishments for assault, murder, etc. in the first place. Clearly you can't act on hate (or jealousy or greed or other motivations) in a way depriving others of their rights; but that is why we punish people when and only when they do violate the rights of others."
"Would you be behind banning hate-speech (re your paragraph on Westboro Baptist Church)?"
Absolutely not.
"1) Criminal law is not about the punishment as much as it is about being a deterrent to crime."
So? There are still constitutional and logical limits to this. The government can't nuke the country to prevent crime from occurring.
"2) Murder charges are based on degrees of murder - the degree is determined by... what? Motive! Yay motive!"
First of all, you're just pointing to some other area of law that uses a similar practice. You're not explaining why this is, standing alone, valid.
Secondly, degrees of murder/motive apply to everyone equally. They don't punish some degrees/motivations more than other. Hate crime laws do, as I pointed out.
Third, I don't defend this system anyway, so why do I care? First degree murder is as bad as felony or second degree murder.
"3) Hate crimes aren't about a crime against a person as much as they are a crime against a community."
Wow, that's Orwellian, and false, too. You don't commit crimes against groups or ideas; you commit crimes against individuals.
"For example, many of these crimes are committed to send a clear message to the suspect class that they are not wanted in "that area.""
Thank you for making my point that you're punishing speech, not acts. The KKK sends the same message with their protests, speeches, books, etc.
And I already addressed this from an equal protection view anyway. How insulting to tell someone attacked for a different reason that he's not as important as someone attacked for racial or sexual orientation reasons?
Kris A. Wampler says:
"Wow, that's Orwellian, and false, too. You don't commit crimes against groups or ideas; you commit crimes against individuals."
Actually that is wrong. Haven't you ever heard "The People of [insert place name] versus [insert defendant's name]"? That is used because certain crimes are considered so heinous that it is a crime against the whole community - hate crimes included.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!