Hate is the Name of the Game in Crime
Are they worse than other crimes?
Let’s talk about hate. Hate crimes to be specific.
By definition these are crimes perpetrated by someone who targets another based on their race, color, religion or national origin. Congress now seeks to expand the definition of hate crimes to those who attack based on a victim’s sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. The goal is to add extra punishment for those convicted under hate crimes statutes. But are they fair?
Two of America’s most recent and widely publicized hate crimes took place within two weeks of each other. On May 31st, there was the murder in a Kansas church of a high profile abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. On June 10th, security guard Stephen T. Johns lost his life after courageously confronting a madman with a gun who entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and started shooting.
In both instances the defendants were described as lone-wolf types, obsessed with hatred of particular groups of people. In the church shooting it’s alleged that the pro-life suspect hated abortion providers so much he resorted to taking life himself. In the second case the 88 year old man behind the gun was said to have long harbored hate for Blacks, Jews and other minorities.
Both were odious crimes to be sure. But why label them hate crimes when we already have strict laws against murder? If convicted both these men (the grievously wounded Holocaust Museum suspect is still alive as I write this) will go to prison for the rest of their lives. What difference does it make if the title “Hate Crime” is attached to their deadly actions?
One of the most heinous racially motivated crimes in this country occurred in Jasper, Texas in 1998. Three white men chained James Byrd Jr., to their pickup truck and dragged him to his death simply because he was black. The trio was tried under a hate crime law. But it didn’t matter what statute was applied – the nation couldn’t have been more repulsed by their crime. Two of the defendants were sentenced to death, the third got life in prison.
The first hate crimes legislation in America was passed forty years ago. Yet according to the Southern Poverty Law Center hate groups continue to flourish. The SPLC displays a map of their locations on its web site. There are 84 in California, 66 in Texas, 56 in Florida, 45 in South Carolina, 40 organized hate groups in New Jersey and Georgia, nearly that many in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri. Does anyone truly believe the label “Hate Crime” and the additional jail time it tacks on to a sentence deters criminals?
Where are our priorities in this country? As Congress seems intent on expanding the definition of certain types of crime I’m left thinking it would be more productive to expend energy figuring out how to prevent crime or on how to treat and re-program the criminal offender.
We’ve already got plenty of laws on the books to use against those who vandalize property, set fires to homes and churches, intimidate, rob, physically attack, maim or kill people. I think the real answer is the follow through.
If someone attacks a gay person let’s prosecute them for assault and demand the judge give the harshest sentence possible. If someone beats a defenseless mentally retarded homeless person let’s convict the suspect of assault with intent to kill and insist the judge pass a sentence denying early release. If a white man attacks an African-American, Hispanic or Asian person because he doesn’t like the color of the person’s skin or the country they came from let’s send a clear message, via a stiff prison sentence, that we will not tolerate that behavior! That said, why should an attack on a homosexual or a minority be worth more punishment than a similar attack on a regular Joe?
Boy, I hope prosecutors and judges are reading this.
Hate crime legislation is based on a person’s motivation for committing a crime. Declaring there is hate in a person’s heart when they act in a criminal fashion seems to be a shaky proposition to me. We should stick to punishing people for what they do – not what we believe they were thinking at the time of the crime.
The FBI recently stepped up its efforts to ferret out festering extremists with a program called “Operation Vigilant Eagle.” It’s designed to closely monitor those who run hate filled internet sites or belong to white supremacy and militia groups. To me, attacking hate at its breeding ground like that makes much better sense than slapping obvious labels on crimes perpetrators commit.
Hate is the name of the game when it comes to crime. We don’t need a fancy label on it. We need to figure out how to make it socially unacceptable.
-30-
Related articles by Zemanta
- Senate Bill Expands Hate Crimes Law (time.com)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Diane,
My daughter has autism and hasn’t been the victim of a hate crime but has been the victim of intolerance. If someone attacked her soley because of her Autism I do believe the person inflicting the physical abuse would have some consequences for their actions!
Hope you have been well!
Renee
I’ve said this before in agreeance with you Diane-start enforcing the laws we already have, instead of catering to special interest groups looking for publicity. Everyone wants equality, yet in the same breath wants different laws for their own personal group, whatever they may be. The gay movement wants hate crimes specifically for cromes against gays, the black community wants hate crimes specifically against black people, and so on and so forth. Again, why not just ditch the “hate crime” label and start enforcing the other laws that deal with assault, murder, vandalization, theft, etc.?
My point exactly, Phillip! ~ DD
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s really very simple, anyone should be able to understand it. You need hate crimes laws because often local authorities don’t aggressively prosecute crimes when the victim is unpopular in a certain community. I find it amazing how you law and order types are always crying for aggressive laws to lock up criminals except when the victim happens to be gay, black, Latino et al. Not at all surprised Diane that you oppose hate crime laws, I’d expect nothing less.
Brian, I think you are misunderstanding the point we are trying to make. No one is saying that there aren’t cops who look the other way when it comes to crimes against particular peoples, but this is exactly why enforcing the laws we currently have is the thing to do. If enforcing means getting rid of the cops who won’t do their jobs, then so be it. I can’t speak for Diane, but at least on my end, my issue isn’t with the particular people in these groups, it’s with the leaders of the special interest groups. I don’t think they actually want equality, which is why they make such a big deal out of things like this. Yes, there are crimes against blacks, latinos, gays, and others that go unworked or poorly worked because of the prejudices of the local and sometimes national authorities, but they aren’t the only ones. There are plenty of botched cases where white people are the victims, either because of the prejudice of the agent or just plain incompetence, and no one wants those to be hate crimes. They just want the laws to actually be enforced, for those who committed the crimes to be punished accordingly. My issue is never with any particular person, it is with the group that cries for equality, then turns around and wants different laws (or different rules) for their group only. Gay, straight, white, black, asian, latino, whatever-if we are all people, and all equal, shouldn’t the same rules apply to everyone?
In response to another comment. See in context »Without federal hate crime laws the feds have no power to step in when the cops and DAs look the other way, that’s the entire point of hate crime laws. It has nothing to do with affording anyone special protection under the law. It has everything to with the fact that all too often crimes against minorities go unpunished because of a lack of will on the part of local officials. As I said the hypocrisy of you law and order types when it comes to hate crime laws is no big surprise.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not true. There are federal civil rights laws already on the books. And since everyone who doesn’t agree with you – to quote you – are “those law and order types” does that mean you are against law and order, Brian?
In response to another comment. See in context »