A case in Brooklyn raises questions about hate crime laws. Today, a Brooklyn man was sentenced to 15 years for a baseball bat attack on a black man. The pepetrator shouted a racial slur while beating the victim (who admitted to police that he was in the neighborhood looking for cars to steal). Because the case was categorized as a hate crime, the pepetrator received a much stiffer sentence than if no racial slur been used.
On the one hand I understand the historical need to protect minorities and other groups from crimes directed at them soley b/c of their skin color, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. I think that historically the problem wasn't merely that "hate" crimes were being committed against minorities, it was that those crimes often went unpunished or were only lightly punished. It was open season on minorities and perhaps the data demonstrates that hate crime laws - with their harsh punishments - have had a detterrent effect on the incidence of such crimes.
On the other hand, a thuggish act is a thuggish act and absent a widespread campaign of violence and/or intimidation against a particular group, I'm not sure I agree that identical acts of violence should be punished more severely because of the pepetrator's motivation for committing the crime. What if the pepetrator had thought racist thoughts but not uttered them? Would the harm caused by his acts been any less? What if the perpetrator in this case had denied ever using such slurs? What about situations when the perpetrator is a member of the same protected group as his victim? Are we to believe, for example, that never in the history of crime has a black perpetrator uttered a racial slur at his black victim? In such an instance, would the crime be classified as a hate crime? These seeming inconsistencies are troubling if you believe that we should be moving towards a more uniform system of justice that punishes crimes without regard to the race or status of the perpetrator or the victim.
On the one hand I understand the historical need to protect minorities and other groups from crimes directed at them soley b/c of their skin color, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. I think that historically the problem wasn't merely that "hate" crimes were being committed against minorities, it was that those crimes often went unpunished or were only lightly punished. It was open season on minorities and perhaps the data demonstrates that hate crime laws - with their harsh punishments - have had a detterrent effect on the incidence of such crimes.
On the other hand, a thuggish act is a thuggish act and absent a widespread campaign of violence and/or intimidation against a particular group, I'm not sure I agree that identical acts of violence should be punished more severely because of the pepetrator's motivation for committing the crime. What if the pepetrator had thought racist thoughts but not uttered them? Would the harm caused by his acts been any less? What if the perpetrator in this case had denied ever using such slurs? What about situations when the perpetrator is a member of the same protected group as his victim? Are we to believe, for example, that never in the history of crime has a black perpetrator uttered a racial slur at his black victim? In such an instance, would the crime be classified as a hate crime? These seeming inconsistencies are troubling if you believe that we should be moving towards a more uniform system of justice that punishes crimes without regard to the race or status of the perpetrator or the victim.
One of the problems with hate crime laws is the misperception that they create (for the first time in our history) a class of super victims; people whom, by virture of their very existence, have extra protection under the law. This seems unfair to some, but in truth, it's not an uncommon application of the law. Many groups in our society are given special protections and in most cases the public policy value of those distinctions goes unquestioned. Most people, for example, don't have a problem with the fact that the penalties for assaulting police officers are harsher than the penalties for assaulting civilians. Ditto for laws protecting children and women.
I think a part of the problem is that hate crime laws are imperfect. Absent special circumstances, they seem no better at enforcing societal norms and values than do traditional laws. I find it a touch ironic, however, that most folks against hate crimes laws tend to be from the law and order side of the aisle. Not the kind of folks who tend to lose sleep over the punishments handed out to criminals. This incongruity leads one to believe that the real issue is not justice in the abstract, but other deeper seated concerns about who gets punished for what; an issue that goes back to day one in our country and for which there can be no denial that race has been an integral part. There's further irony of course in the fact that perhaps the first hate crime laws were the white slave laws which made white women a special class under the law.
Mostly though, the truth that seems to get lost in the debate is that laws are local. Crimes are not uniformly punished across states. A robbery in New York that might result in a 5 year sentence might result in a 20 year sentence in Texas. Even within jurisdictions, there has long existed differences in the penalties handed out for similar crimes (penalties for dealing crack vs. powdered cocaine come to mind). Further, the practice of weighing the intent/motivation of a perpetrator is not something foreign to our system; our penal code is full of graduated penalties based on the intent of the criminal. Hate crime laws are not perfect and there may very well be reasons to revisit the need for them in our current system but not for the reasons most of their opponents believe.
I think a part of the problem is that hate crime laws are imperfect. Absent special circumstances, they seem no better at enforcing societal norms and values than do traditional laws. I find it a touch ironic, however, that most folks against hate crimes laws tend to be from the law and order side of the aisle. Not the kind of folks who tend to lose sleep over the punishments handed out to criminals. This incongruity leads one to believe that the real issue is not justice in the abstract, but other deeper seated concerns about who gets punished for what; an issue that goes back to day one in our country and for which there can be no denial that race has been an integral part. There's further irony of course in the fact that perhaps the first hate crime laws were the white slave laws which made white women a special class under the law.
Mostly though, the truth that seems to get lost in the debate is that laws are local. Crimes are not uniformly punished across states. A robbery in New York that might result in a 5 year sentence might result in a 20 year sentence in Texas. Even within jurisdictions, there has long existed differences in the penalties handed out for similar crimes (penalties for dealing crack vs. powdered cocaine come to mind). Further, the practice of weighing the intent/motivation of a perpetrator is not something foreign to our system; our penal code is full of graduated penalties based on the intent of the criminal. Hate crime laws are not perfect and there may very well be reasons to revisit the need for them in our current system but not for the reasons most of their opponents believe.
Posts
2 comments:
beating someone with a bat is terrible, but if the motivation for the attack is race, then to me it is even worse. thus, my approval for hate crime legislation.
You raise the question of what if the person does not utter slurs? ..well if there is no evidence of a hate crime, then it is not a hate crime. I think that question deals more with the amount and quality of evidence rather than the need to punish more severely hate crimes to deter them.
I really don't need a massive campaign of hate crimes in order for legislation to exist. no mercy for those that act thuggish against other just on account of race. also the focus for a hate crime violation should be on whether crime occurred because of the victim's race regardless of the perpetrator's race--again the objective is to discourage people being victimized because of their race. yes this moves away from uniform discipline but that's ok cause i want to use such laws to deter and punish such behavior as much as possible.
Of course almost every law in our system is imperfect or not perfectly enforced--that does not take away from the legitimacy of having hate crime laws.
The requirement to prove a hate crime should always "beyond any reasonable doubt".
speaking of terrible crimes...(slightly different than hate crimes)...i dont think there should be a statute of limiations for police brutality. case in point Chicago.
Post a Comment