"What you are saying is that if two cars of teenagers go looking for trouble, and each one commits a random drive-by shooting, they should be punished differently if in one car they said "let's off the tenth person we see" and in the other car they say "let's off the tenth honkey we see."
No. That wasn't what I meant. Certain crimes reveal motives and circumstances which appear to argue for a less punitive response than (say) hate crimes--which have no motive other than a malignant hatred. In recalling your words ("Certain aspects of motivation certainly should be taken into consideration -- whether, for example, a person was acting in what they believed to be self-defence, which is of course a thought process in and of itself, or maybe if a man is beating up a guy who raped his daughter, those sorts of motivations, which are related to the facts or maybe to the specific individual who has or is about to do something are okay to take into account, IMO"), it would appear we agree that the thinking of the perpetrator should inform the punition.
This, of course, is nothing new. As human beings, we recognize that circumstances alter cases; and the justice system has always taken a relative view of various crimes. It certainly recognizes that crimes (such as the private justice example you gave), ought to carry less retribution than do "hate" crimes--and this recognition, likewise, has been translated into law.
Depending on life experience, cultural conditioning, etc.--individuals will be more or less likely to sympathize with a particular instance of crime. They may even marry the perpetrator--if they are not already a spouse. Crime is never a black and white issue.
Society has different classes, different groups, and of course--different individuals. Society is multicultural, multiracial, and multi-religious. Ideas of offence and retribution are as diverse as they are wide ranging. As you demonstrated by the sympathy of your particular examples, Chris, people hold subjective and relative points of view, as to just what "letting the punishment fit the crime" ought to entail. Justice is a relative concept--some societies simply do not feel it is an act of justice to bury people in sand, and throw stones at them until there is nothing left of their face--and, of course, they are dead.
However, there do appear to be areas of strong commonality in human opinion, based on the natural make-up of human beings, and our common evolution through millions of years. It is a rare person (and probably a very ill one) who can muster any sympathy for the criminal who kills someone ONLY because they hate their colour, their gender, their race, or their sexuality. The heartlessness and mindlessness of the act isolates the perpetrator from the normal ability to identify a shared humanity. We cannot connect with the perpetrator, neither by sympathy, by empathy, nor by reason. We are unable to soften our revulsion either with the heart's compassion, or with the mind's reason. It is the intersection and overlapping of "shared humanity" that allows and encourages the many different opinions as regards individual crimes--and the perpetrators of such. In these cases there is simply nothing to share.
To modify your example to allow it to speak to our actual focus of discussion: Pretend we substitute your avenging father in the stead of the psychopath who hated all people. The other guy says, ""let's off the tenth honkey we see.". The avenging father says, " That person raped my daughter. I'm going to shoot him". In this example, where we compare a "hate" crime to a crime where some people can identify with the mind and the heart of the perpetrator--we find that some people (such as yourself) would clearly advocate that the "hate" crime ought to receive a more punitive response than the crime for which "shared humanity" encourages a sympathetic understanding of the perpetrator, and an ability to identify with both his heart and his mind--even while vehemently disagreeing with the concept of vigilante justice.
As a group, society has come to enact laws which serve up harsher retributions to those convicted of hate crimes. People simply do not care as much about misanthropes who are heartlessly and mindlessly hateful. It is something which assaults the sensibilities of normal people, and which removes the condition of "shared humanity" from the equation of justice.
It is this overwhelming consensus of feeling which has led society to create the category of "hate" crimes. Mindless and thoughtless behaviour is like a malignancy on the spirit of humankind. It is alien to the normal human experience, and thus it is easy for people to see such people as INhuman. This is the response from feeling. It is a human response, and it will be a part of the equation of "justice" for as long as human beings are capable of feeling.
The rational response, which includes the awareness that the entire community is much more vulnerable before the sinister presence of alien and mindless hate, is another reason that hate crimes are given more cautious scrutiny--but that is all for now.
Your example does not address the point, for the simple reason that it compares two hate crimes, one to one another: The person hating "honkeys", and the person hating EVERYONE. "Hate" is not always the optimum way to describe all mindless and heartless crimes, but the principle which places these crimes beyond the majority of human sympathy, remains the same.
The fact that society finds it too awkward or tedious to label every single type of hate crime AS a hate crime, but prefers, as a practical matter, to address the myriad mindless crimes which fall outside of broad and easily distinguishable categories, through the common legal remedy of judicial discretion--does not deny the fact that society does indeed consider thought and motive in its effort to make the punishment fit the crime--and it does so even when it has not explicitly noted the particular crime as belonging to a repugnant category, and as being capable of classification amongst the alien and the incomprehensible.
Law is created by the people, and for the people. It is different everywhere, for justice is relative. It reflects the feelings, the fears, the passions, and the reasons of real live human persons like yourself.
Your community is larger than you or I. It more fairly represents the interests of all its members than could any one individual. Society recognizes a need to treat crimes with regard to motive and thought--just as you do. It has been decided that "hate" crimes represent the antitheses of both thought and feeling--whether you agree with us or not.
One could pose the question as to whether the prevailing and dominant view is more enlightened than your own. And I don't suppose I am going to be able to answer that to your satisfaction. But I trust that I have answered it. |
