Hate Is the Name of the Game in Crime

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?

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.

Comments

[tmaxPA]

"Where are our priorities in this country? "

Where are the brains in your head? You cannot seriously be trying to claim that because hate crime statutes would not increase the punishment in your examples (both capital murder!) then we shouldn't have them?

It is obvious you don't understand 'hate crime legislation'. Let me make it simple for you. "Hate crimes" are domestic terrorism. The reason we punish them more is because it isn't just the crime that was committed, but that crime was also a threat to anyone in the targeted group. It is the silent threat which is made a crime, and punished, because it is the most we can do to discourage such threats while maintaining a free society.

"Boy, I hope prosecutors and judges are reading this."

So you're in favor of giving individuals discretion to start punishing some people more than others, and you think somehow this is a better way to REDUCE hate crimes than actually making laws against them? Just how long has it been since looking at you on the street was a crime for a black man, according to the wise prosecutors and judges (or the mobs they failed to prosecute or judge) in this country?

[shoush]

Amen.

That's exactly it.

[dudleysharp]

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.

[tmaxPA]

Would those be straight white judges and juries you are hoping at? Or ones that have ever actually felt threatened by a hate crime?

[graphicnovel]

I agree with this writer. I might also add that hate crime defenders are quick to say that it would work on black on white crime, but the incident in Akron Ohio proves otherwise. Even thought racial things were said, the police were very quick to say "it's not a hate crime".

[tmaxPA]

You misunderstand what it means to say something is a hate crime, if you think the fact that racial things were said is all that matters.

[swansong50]

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.

[Diane Dimond - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, SwanSong50, I respect your opinion but I think we've already got adequate laws on the books.
if prosecutors and judges would vigorously go after harsh sentences for those who commit hateful crimes (no more of this 5 to 7 years but you're out in 2 and a half) that would send a massively important signal to criminals. ~ DD

[philip1111]

The people are losing their moral while becoming modern. The society needs to be attentive that moral values. Well things needs to be modernized but keeping intact with moral values.
-------------
philip
office politics uk

[ahuffreader]

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.

[Diane Dimond - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear AHuffreader, See my response above to SwanSong50. Our law books are thick enough! If you want extra punishment for those who commit hate-fueled crimes I'M ALL FOR THAT. But let's do that by having the judicial system get a new attitude about sentencing!