I thought I had this hate crime issue all figured out. At first, I didn’t understand the need, but then I was enlightened.
Let’s say students from one school spray paint their nickname on their arch rival’s gymnasium the night before the big game; that is an act of vandalism.
Now, if a bunch of anti-Semites spray paint a swastika on the garage door of the Jewish family that just moved into the neighborhood, that is an act of vandalism as well, but it’s more than that. While the first is a prank that might result in some hard feelings that get worked out on the field, the second is a direct threat that could have people fearing for their safety. Therefore, it’s understandable that the second act of vandalism be prosecuted more harshly under the charge of a hate crime.
Lately, as hate crimes are being discussed more in the media, I’m back to being confused about the need for them. It seems that when the crimes become more serious, making a distinction based on the compelling reasoning of the perpetrators serves no purpose.
If some thug beats a person to death, is it really more of a crime if he selected his victim based on his race or sexuality, than if he targeted someone who he thought might be carrying a lot of cash? Do hate crimes pose a bigger danger to society than random acts of violence?
Take, for example, the tragic case of the woman who was beaten to death last year in her home near Gietl Park.
By all accounts, it was a random attack. But what if two years from now investigators receive in the mail a diary that the killer had kept during the years leading up to the crime. And what if this diary revealed a great hatred for women in general, and nice looking women who live near parks in particular. Should he then be retried and subjected to a longer sentence? Is he less likely to be rehabilitated, and thus less worthy of eventually regaining his freedom, if he selected his victim because she was a woman?
In addition to affecting how justice is meted out to the guilty, hates crimes also place varying degrees of value on victims’ lives or well-being. I realize that is not the intent, but how could you feel otherwise if the same act, say a murder, is subjected to different levels of punishment based on who the victim was.
What really complicates the issue for me is the Jena 6 case.
Obviously, hanging a noose in an attempt to intimidate black students is more than a prank and the perpetrators should be prosecuted more severely than if they just ran the fat kid’s underpants up the flagpole. Here, a hate crime seems justified.
However, are the black students who are charged with beating the white student also guilty of a hate crime? Were they responding to threats from the victim, or were they retaliating against a person because he was white? And just how good are prosecutors at determining what a motivates a person to perpetrate a crime on a given victim?
I’m sure there’s some nuance here that I’m missing. So what is it?
Loading ...
Nuance?
I am probably not telling you anything you don’t already know but the “Hate Crime” designation is nothing more than political pabulum. It was designed to pacify.
I suppose it could have some impact if applied in the right situations. For instance, in the swastika painted on the garage scenario, if the perpetrators’ sentence was enhanced a considerable amount due to it qualifying as a “Hate Crime” it may deter a repeat offense. But you are right; applying it to a serious felony case is nearly useless.
Almost anytime the legislators create “enhancements” in penalties for criminal acts it is nothing but political posturing. People know right from wrong. They either care or don’t care and adding enhanced penalties has little effect. The only thing that has real deterrent effect is the surety of being caught and punished, and since most criminals don’t think they will be caught, what is the point of enhancements?……..I think.
M.B. | Dec 7, 2007 | Reply
Dan
I’m actually torn on this issue too. I have often wondered if hate crime penalties were established because crimes committed against particular groups of people because of whatever characteristic, might be more likely to be mob- or group-influenced, making it more likely to happen, with increased frequency, and with more “damage”?
A random murder or random vandalization is probably usually done by one or two individuals out of boredom, a personal vendetta, or just out and out rage. But crimes against minority groups BECAUSE they are minorities might maybe be more dangerous because of the power in numbers. Not that more people participate in the crime, but that more people might support the criminal action because of the victim(s) and be inspired to copycat.
The Jena 6 example,I have read, has inspired other racists to hang nooses as a “joke”. But did the black kid beating up a specific white kid because of the issues at that high school provoke a different black kid across the country to beat up a random white kid because he is white? I don’t know.
This, to me, makes hate crimes even more random….if the perpetrator knows only that its target belongs to a particular race, class, or creed, rather than a personal beef gone too far. For this reason, I would support almost any gang activity being classified as hate crimes, since it is my understanding that they are usually directed at rival gangs.
I agree with M.B.(that’s right- I said it!) that hate crime enhancements probably don’t serve much purpose in deterring serious crime, but I’m not ready to call them useless just yet.
nancy | Dec 7, 2007 | Reply
Nancy,
I agree with what you’re saying about crimes based on bigotry having the potential to incite further crimes, both by those who share the same bigoted attitudes and retaliation by members of the aggrieved group. But can we really punish someone to a greater degree because their actions “may” spark a copycat-type crime?
I’m sure there were a lot of people who heard about the Matthew Shepherd case and thought the “homo” got what he deserved. As barbaric as this attitude is, it’s not against the law to feel that way. Hate is not a crime. Murder, rape, and battery are crimes. And we already have laws against them.
If there’s evidence that people who commit crimes against minorities as a result of bigotry are more likely to commit further crimes than those who choose victims randomly, then I’m all for locking them up for a longer period of time. I suspect, however, that M.B is correct that these laws are based on appeasement, not a fair administration of justice.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Dec 7, 2007 | Reply
Maybe M.B. can provide some insight here. Aren’t there stiffer laws for violence/murder against the elderly? Aren’t there harsher punishments for sexual assault of children younger than 13 than “older” child victims? Are we valueing the very old and the very young more than those of us in our 30’s and 40’s? Or is it that we see them as more likely a target of criminal activity and therefore send the message, however symbolic, that predators of specific groups of people are going to be subject to tougher penalties?
I don’t doubt that there is politicizing going on in enacting such specific laws, but really, I can’t think of a single law whose sponsor or supporters aren’t hoping to gain some kind of cache by backing it. It’s the nature of the beast.
Dan, I see what you’re saying about the Matthew Shepherd case (I was going to refer to him in my first post but I could not remember his name–my fingers would only type “Hilary Swank”), but I’m not suggesting, nor supporting the notion that people be punished for agreeing with the crime, however sick their endorsement might be.
Remember when the group of black men randomly picked out a truck driver after the Rodney King verdict and beat the crap out of him? That was pure hatred against that innocent man because he was white. If the understanding that those guys would be punished more because of the brutality, senselessness and probability that their actions could incite others to do the same might actually deter other sheep from following, I think the law is a good one, no matter what politicians stands atop it claiming victory.
nancy | Dec 8, 2007 | Reply
Nancy,
I think that you’re correct that the young and the elderly are protected by the administration of stiffer justice to those who prey upon them.
However.
Studies show that black-on-black violence is far more prevalent than white-on-black violence. So can we really say that blacks are more vulnerable to being victimized by whites?
I realize that the history of slavery and oppression cast white-on-black crime in a harsher light and do more psychological damage on a societal level, but is a perpetrator of such a crime legally responsible for these effects, or just for the crime committed against the victim?
As for Reginald Denny, the white truck driver that was attacked in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, I don’t think it matters if he was attacked because he was white, or because the attackers wanted his truck. There should be harsh penalties for beating someone in that manner, regardless of race, color, or creed. And there are.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Dec 8, 2007 | Reply
Dan, I don’t know the answers. I have mixed feelings about Jena 6. But I do know this for sure: You should be a lawyer. Seriously.
Kath | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply
Forgot to add that as a student at Teachers College, where both a noose and swastika were hung on the office doors of a black and a Jewish professor, respectively, the situation got really out of hand. There were emails nearly every day circulated to the TC community from various faculty and employees of the college, all with something to say about the situation. The most common sentiment was “What is happening? What does this mean?” My boss and I were like, “Enough already.” Yes, we recognize that these symbols represent hatred for specific groups, but the more credence you give the situation, the more weight those symbols hold. There was a really well-written NY Times piece a few weeks after the noose incident that summed up my feelings. Here’s a link to it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/nyregion/14towns.html
Kath | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply