Is the Label Helpful?
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. 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?
Convicted of Murdering James Byrd - John King (Front) & Lawrence Brewer
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.
Is a Hate Crime Worse Than "Regular" Crime?
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.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
I am assuming that if someone beats someone – they hate them. I am assuming that if someone murders someone – they hate them. So I've never understood the purpose for hate crimes.
I suspect politicians use "hate crimes legislation" to get the votes of minorities, gays, etc. Just like Nifong, he prosecuted the Duke lacrosse players just to gain the votes of the black community there in Durham.
The purpose of a trial is to find out whether or not the evidence is strong enough to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries and judges are not psychologists, it is not their job to find out what the motivation behind a crime.
Reader Shyron B. writes:
" While I agree with your overall assessment regarding punishing crimes as set forth in USC, I respectfully would like to adjust your cited cases.
Infamous abortionist Dr? George Tiller murdered by lone gun-man Scott P. Roeder, May 31, 2009.
Army Privates William Long, murdered and Quinton Ezeagwula, severely wounded June 1, 2009, by lone gun-man Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe). Police indicate the suspect stated "political and religious motives" for the targeted attack at the Army-Navy Career Center in west Little Rock, Arkansas.
Contrast the sentencing of James Byrd Jr. dragging death defendants in Jasper, TX, John W. King (death), Shawn Berry (LWOP) and Lawrence Brewer (death).
An equally heinous, racially motivated crime occurred in S. central LA, were Antoine Miller (later killed outside a nightclub) Henry Keith Watson, Lance Jerome Parker received probation and Damian “Football” Williams sentence…mayhem and misdemeanor assault for nearly beating Reginald O. Denny to death for no reason other than he was "white!"
Hate-crime proponents endlessly exploit Matthew Shepherd for political gain. But, conveniently ignore the tragic case of Jesse Dirkhising; a 13-year old boy "sacrificed on the altar of political correctness; Long after being used as a sex toy and tortured to death by two homosexual predator pedophiles, Davis Carpenter, then 38, and Joshua Brown, then 22 in September of 1999, his memory is repressed as an inconvenient truth by those seeking to impose unconstitutional measures." (full story: http://www.dradams.org/)
The way we make crime unacceptable is by insisting on severe punishment while incarcerated and swifter executions. No crime will ever be deterred by providing societies creature comforts and multiple layers of appeals at taxpayers expense."
ABQ Journal reader Paul S. writes:
"Diane your article "Hate Is the Name of The Game in Crime", is interesting and you made some good points. But since your white and not a minority, I'm a Hispanic Gay man, you don't have any real life experience to speak to the matter. So you should keep your "White" prejudices to yourself. Its not a pretty color on you. We need Hate Crime Legislation so its a fair playing field when there is a white judge and a mostly white jury and a homosexual minority or a minority individual who has been the victim of a hate crime. Fair is fair. "
Thanks for taking the time to write, Ms. Beavers. I wish I had enough space to mention ALL the heinous crimes that have occurred in the name of extreme hate.
But again – the bottom line is the punishment we mete out, not the label we put on the crime. ~ DD
Web site reader Tim writes:
"What a fascinating topic. I never thought of it this way."
Groups of all colors perpetuate racism for the purpose of soliciting fund to combat racism, it is still pretty big business in this country. I have many friends of all races, mostly middle class and most of them agree with me, that all those still crying about it should be fenced in somewhere in the Antarctica and let them fight among themselves and leave the rest of us alone. At the time of the Jasper, Tx incident you refer to, I was living only a short drive from there and tried to attend the trial a couple of times, it was so crowded and the general public was the last to obtain seating, so I missed viewing any of the proceedings. I also have sat on a number of jury panels and a few actual juries.
I think one of the most confusing issues that can face a jury is the different degrees of murder, rape, burglary, etc., and listening to the explanation of those varying degrees. You are so correct, murder is murder, rape is rape and burglary is burglary, are there so many defense lawyers in need of clients that this confusion should continue. The criminal statues should be overhauled and simplified and the penalties should also be uniform and applied evenly across the board. That would do more to deter crime than any other steps taken thus far.
What an interesting topic for discussion. On the face of it you are absolutely right, Diane. There is no doubt that politicians line up behind hate crimes legislation to score points. But what about a heterosexual white jury deliberating the case involving an attack or murder of a gay hispanic man? Will this one get the same sort of verdict and punishment as when a person with a more "traditional" lifestyle is attacked? I hope so, but I wonder.As for the reader Paul S. who suggests "you don't have any real life experience to speak to the matter", what nonsense! All of us have real life experience and should be valued for it.
When something similar to "Operation Vigilant Eagle" was used against Communists (who,you recall, killed 100 million people last century)and their associates and alleged sympathizers it was called COINTELPRO (which also, to be precise, did target some extreme white racists as well) and was regularly denounced. as repression.
Good article.
Hate crime legislation is just another way of keeping prejudice alive and well. Truly violent criminals are indifferent sociopaths – they cannot see or feel their victim's pain (and that would apply to any victim of their cruelty).
"That said, why should an attack on a homosexual or a minority be worth more punishment than a similar attack on a regular Joe?"
My sentiments exactly. So many minorities (hispanics, african-americans, etc.) claim they want to stop and prevent racism, they say that it's only white americans who are racist, yet there are laws like these. If someone murders someone, they murder them… the reason should only matter as far as motive. You prove the motive in court and that shouldn't come into play when sentencing.
A fight breaks out between a white guy and a black guy over a fender bender in the parking lot. The white guy is clearly the instigator. While they are thowing puches, the white guy screams "you black son-of-a-bitch". Suddenly, the assault charge is escalated to hate crime status and the guy gets years added to his sentence? How can the courts possibly measure the motivational components of a conflict?
Dianne, this hate crime stuff is just another symptom of ledislators not know their butt from a
hole in the ground. This is like asking a medical Doctor if he'd examined the dead man for a
pluse when the dead man's brains were all over the road. When it comes to common sense,
very few in Washington DC even knows what your talking about. I don;t think that they;ve ever
heard of it.
Thanks for this. I discussed in
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/07/21/hate-cr...
Do you stand by your assertion that Vigilant Eagle is monitoring web sites. Has this appeared anywhere in the MSM? Pretty big story, if documentable.
Yep. I stand by it. Sources within the federal government tell me public websites are indeed a target of surveillance. the Wall Street Journal reported on this as well.
Hello Diane,
I've been a big fan of yours for years.
As a white man, I do believe in hate crimes laws. Why? Because if, for example, a white person murders a black simply because he's black, as opposed to in the commission of a robbery, then the utter heinousness of the murder and the likely pre-planning are proven.
Without hate crimes laws, an attack on a gay person that results in that person's death could be defended in court as an "accident," or the motivation being robbery, lessening the perp's sentence. Knowing the attack was based on hate makes the fact that it was an intended murder much more provable, and the viciousness of the perp clear for all. Including parole boards. There aren't too many reformed racists and haters. Why let neo-Nazi killers out early when they are more likely (I believe) to re-offend.
Some may think all physical attacks are equal, but the existence of hate crimes laws also tells the public (when people become aware of them) that hate is wrong in the eyes of the law, and that acting upon that hate illegally will cost you even more than just robbing a store to feed your family.
Finally, I disagree with all comments here blaming the existence of hate crimes laws on politicians or Sharpton types doing it for cheap political reasons. These laws were well-intended, even if some may disagree with them for other reasons.
I, too, agree with you Diane. The politicians use the term "Hate Crimes" as a means to put their names out there. I live in a town known for its KKK activity. The only "hate crime" we have or is viewed as such is a cross burning. Here murder is murder. I feel as you that there should be stiffer sentences handed out for murder convictions…any type! To me, adding the term "hate crime" to a murder is like a rape trial. The VICTIM gets put on trial. It turns into a circus, such as the Matthew Shepard case. Although not rape..it allowed everyone to look into his personal life. That was not fair to his memory. When someone is murdered just because they are different it makes them no less dead then someone who was murdered for, say, a break-in. Just politicians or lawyers cheap way of getting noticed.
Diane, As always I shared this article with my 16 yr. old son and he got me to thinking when he said" How do you define a hate crime?" What if a mother shoots and kills a man for raping or molesting her son? Is it considered a hate crime? if a woman shoots and kills her husband who has been physically abusing her for years? Those are both really done out of hate. He said he believes that people are so used to seeing murder in a paper that no one pays attention anymore. If they use "Hate Crime" it catches attention.
Who says our youth do not pay attention?
Huffington Post Reader SwanSong50 writes:
I could not DISAGREE more with this person's arguments for not acknowleding certian crimes because they are based on hatred. The amount and frequency of hate is escalating in this country and the government needs to get a strong handle on it now. People are out of control and there needs to be an equally strong response to save lives."
Huffington Post Reader Ahuffreader writes:
"Hate crimes are worse than the underlying offense because they not only harm the individual victim, they threaten the public peace. Thus they are called out separately and punished more severely."
DD Web site reader Sharpjfa writes:
"Look at Dianes final statement "We should stick to punishing people for what they do — not what we believe they were thinking at the time of the crime."
Freedom of thought/speech is a glorious right. We accept peaceful protests even if it reflects vile hatreds. But when they cross the line into violence, it becomes a crime. Not before that, however.
It seems incongruous, philosophically, if not morally, to prosecute the free thought/speech of hatred because it is attached to a violent crime, when in all other circumstances we demand freedom of thougth/speech.
Philosophically, as well as legally, I find it problematic. If we do not make free thought/speech a crime, now, how is it that we can justify classifying such speech/thought as an enhanced criminal component in connection to a violent crime? It is either free thought/speech or it is not. If true, all sentences given, with an enhancement component based upon free thought/speech, are, I believe, strongly, subject to being overtuned on appeal.
For me (and Diane, I believe), I would hope that judges and juries would enhance sentences by giving more time and more severe sanctions when they find, through the discovery and trial process, that the violent crime was motivated by hatred/prejudice. That is a much better solution, I believe, than both the legal and philosophical problems that would come from making it statutory."
NOTE TO READERS: For a full blown blast at this column I direct your attention to the following link on the Daily Kos.
As you may know my columns are posted in various places on the web including http://www.TrueSlant.com and the Huffington Post. The writer of this Daily Kos blast found this column at the latter and was completely incensed. Gee, I thought in America we respected and encouraged people to have differing opinions. Apparently not in this man's view:
http://boxerdave.dailykos.com/
Wow…Diane, this man is unbelieveable. What a moron. People have a right to different opinions. He should know, he expressed his….in length. He kept talking about white,high society people. There are NEVER any crimes committed against them. Sounds like he is a little bitter. Hope his post toasties are better tomorrow