Punishment fits crime, not cause

Thursday, November 5, 1998

Punishment fits crime, not cause

LAWS: Movement to help specific groups trivializes plight of all
other victims

Recently, we all heard of the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard,
a gay student at the University of Wyoming. This act has touched
off a frenzied call for more federal hate-crime legislation. The
idea is to protect certain minorities who may be particularly
subject to violent crime. Despite its intentions, however,
hate-crime legislation poses a great number of legal and ethical
questions which prove it not viable.

For the sake of this article, a hate crime shall be defined as
"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or
in the case of a property crime, the property that is the origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation of any person"
(Section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
act of 1994).

Now that hate crimes are defined, the question arises about
whether they should exist as a separate category of crime. The
proposed legislation that is sitting before the House of
Representatives would expand federal jurisdiction in the
investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Proponents of the
bill claim that federal enforcement is necessary in order to ensure
the proper prosecution of alleged hate crimes.

Also, there is the notion that crimes perpetuated against
another on the basis of their collective identity is a worse crime,
since the motives are so deplorable. For example, Stop The Hate
states that "The Hate Crimes Bill is necessary because of the
extensiveness to which a hate crime pervades and affects an entire
community. Hate crimes are not committed as an offense simply to
the targeted individual; they are committed against the entire
community to which that targeted individual belongs. The targeted
individual is only meant to suffer the brunt of the crime as "an
example" to the rest of his/her community."
(http://www.stopthehate.org/offsite_frame.shtml?http://members.aol.com/legal
inc/hcqa.htm)

Hate crimes are looked at as particularly lamentable since they
can be perceived as crimes against an entire group, which is why
they warrant their own category.

While these arguments do have a point, there are a number of
problems that exist with hate-crime legislation. One problem deals
with the idea that hate crimes are somehow worse than other crimes.
If Matthew Shepard had been beaten and killed for his money, rather
than his sexual orientation, would that act have been more
justified? A murder is a murder. Why question the motives of the
perpetrator? This makes hate crimes "thought crimes" more than
anything. The thoughts of the accused are now put on trial.

In addition, giving a greater sentence to crimes of hate is an
insult to all other people who have been victims of violent crimes.
This is merely implying that the sufferings of one victim are less
than those of another, despite what actually occurred. If a person
is dead, he or she is dead. The motives of the attacker do not make
the victim any more dead. The accused should be prosecuted on the
basis of the actual crime committed, not for what he or she was
thinking at the time.

As for the argument that attacking an individual can be directed
towards a greater whole, this can be applied to nearly every crime.
There are many crimes that can serve to intimidate a greater
population. Crimes committed against children scare parents as a
whole. Crime committed on school campuses scare students. The
murder of abortion doctors scares rational people everywhere. Based
on this idea, virtually any transgression can be construed as a
hate crime.

Another problem that emerges is how to determine what is a hate
crime and what is not. For example, let’s say an African American
is attacked by a European American in the form of a robbery. A
crime is committed. But because the attacker and victim are of
different ethnic backgrounds, grounds exist for a hate-crime trial.
Determining ulterior motives is nearly impossible unless the
attacker expresses some overt form of racist action. Now another
trial is needed to determine what the perpetrator was thinking at
the time of the attack. And there is no forensic lab that can
determine the unconscious motivations of a scofflaw.

Hate crimes also constitute a small percentage of actual crimes
committed.

For example, in 1995, the FBI reported 7,947 incidents of hate
crimes nationwide (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#state).
Compare that with the millions of crimes that occur in this country
every year. Does that warrant a separate category? Hate crimes
comprise a minor percentage of the actual number of crimes
committed, and the government is wasting time and funds trying to
bring about more legislation on this issue.

Another argument that is commonly brought up in favor of
hate-crime legislation is the idea that the extra punishments will
serve as a deterrent for those planning such an attack.

This is specious reasoning. Stiffer punishments do not serve as
a deterrent to crime, as exemplified by the death penalty. This is
the ultimate form of punishment one can receive, yet it has had no
mitigating effects on the crime rate. So what makes anyone think
that a few extra months in prison will serve as a deterrent?

Hate-crime legislation also sets the stage for double jeopardy
trials.

Since the federal government would be given the power to
prosecute in addition to the individual state government, it would
be able to try someone again if it did not like the outcome of the
first trial. This violates the 5th Amendment of the Constitution
which states "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Current hate crime
legislation will circumvent the Constitution by potentially putting
culprits in double jeopardy.

Legislation against hate crimes is also a first step towards
totalitarianism. Imposing separate laws against hate crimes merely
lays the foundation for laws against hate speech. Hate speech can
be construed as a threat towards a particular group, and could lead
to pressure by certain factions who seek to protect themselves from
any verbal criticism.

Overall, legislation against hate crimes is a frightening
concept. The idea creates a sense of arbitrariness in the law. If
our system of justice is based upon equality before the law, then
all crimes should be treated with equal regard, without one being
treated worse than the other.Matthew Gever

Gever supports diversity. In fact, all colors and creeds are
featured in his fantasies. Reach out and touch him at
[email protected].

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]