Hate crime legislation is hateful
Christine Niles
As I See It ...
At least once last year I received an e-mail petition from the Multicultural Student Organization urging me, a "multicultural" student, to support hate crimes policies. For those not familiar, hate crimes laws punish criminals motivated by hatred for race, religion, gender, age, disability or sexual preference. The language of the e-mail brimmed with hope, urging that such legislation would be one more step in the direction of equality and justice. The afflicted would be comforted by the knowledge that the perpetrator received a double dose of punishment, for hate crimes policies apply additional penalties to criminal acts. In other words, the punishment for good, old-fashioned homicide is increased if the perpetrator is also found guilty of "hateful" motives.
So, like any well-meaning, sincere, eager law student, I signed up, right?
Wrong.
Hate crimes legislation is one of the worst ideas ever to enter a legislator's mind (although a terrific idea for politicians who need votes). First, hate crimes laws are reminiscent of penalizing thought crimes. Thoughts, no matter how hateful, must be accompanied by a criminal (or at least an almost criminal) act in order for the state to prosecute. It is hard enough for a jury to determine, from an objective standpoint, whether or not the mere intent to kill existed — to add on top of that a determination of racist, sexist or agist motive is to wade more deeply into the psychology of the accused. The jury will find itself flailing in waters too deep and murky for it to swim through.
Even if the jury felt it were up to the job, it would find a more fundamental problem: Hate crimes policies are incoherent. First of all, how does the policy-maker define "hate?" Which groups count and which do not? Race is included as a factor for severer punishment — which races? Which religions? Which sexualities? Would a homophobe who murdered a homosexual count? Sure. Would a racist killing an African-American count? Of course. Would a black woman killing a Scottish Presbyterian solely on account of her intense hatred for Scottish Presbyterians count? Er, well … hmm. Good question.
But this should count just as much as, if not more than, the previous two cases; it involves both ethnicity (Scottish) and religion (Presbyterian). Or what if a homosexual murdered a straight man on account of his bias against straight people? Umm, dunno … another tough one. What about an overweight man killed by one who loathed fat people? Definitely doesn't count. If only hate crimes legislation included hatred for economic classes, Sara Jane Olson could have been sentenced longer for offing a "bourgeois pig."
The fact is that hate crimes legislation tends to favor distinct groups of people over others. Certain privileged, "persecuted" classes exist in the minds of the politically correct. Only certain classes of people have the right to special protection and special treatment on account of their being afflicted for many years past. This might be reasonable concerning two issues in this nation's history: slavery and segregation. The law has recognized that Equal Protection may sometimes mean redress for a class of people over the long run, rather than redress for individuals in particular cases. Which means that some people, for a certain amount of time, are more equal than others.
Some may agree with that; some may not. I only point out that such an agenda lies hidden in hate crimes legislation, except it is applied not only to favor certain minority races, but also to favor certain genders (female), particular sexual preferences (homosexual, bisexual, transsexual) and particular religions (anything but Christianity). And one sees that, in practice, this is exactly the way convictions fall. Punishment is meted out to heterosexuals assaulting homosexuals, but almost never the other way around. Penalty is given for whites attacking blacks, but not often vice versa. In theory, equality; in practice, bias.
Murder is murder is murder. I may kill from hatred of you for simply being who you are — tall, green-eyed, a good cook, a bad speller, whatever. Will the law then tell me that my motives are just not as bad? That my punishment for murdering will be less severe because I am in some way more innocent than those singled out for hate crimes?
In the end, the people decide which laws they want passed — and if the people want hate crimes legislation, they will get hate crimes legislation. Far be it from me to stand in the way of democracy. But, dear people, before you make your voices heard, I only ask that you think hard about the implications of such laws. They sound nice, they are well-meaning, they appear to do good — but they are bad policy. They are one more example of well-intentioned citizens seeking to work justice and producing just the opposite.
Christine Niles is a student at the Notre Dame Law School. Her column appears every other Thursday. She can be reached at viewpoint.1@nd.edu.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, February 14, 2002
