"As to hate crimes, assuming you are using the common usage of a hate crime as a crime with an addtional punitive element..."
I was. I disagree with your argument. You admit to certain "maybes" which you obviously consider to justify (for you) a variance in application. However, you don't see the reasoning behind differentiating between hate crimes and others.
As you are aware, murder (I'll talk about murder) generally has a very obvious motive. And I'm not talking of self defense. I'm speaking of murder. Often it is between people who know one another, and have emotional connections. Hate crimes don't have a motive (I.E., a reason)--I mean other than prejudice and hatred itself.
Some people belive that merely expressing the outrage that such mindless viciousness impels us to feel--through giving the matter special focus in society (whether or not the punishment is substantially different)--may serve to deter such outrageous acts of violence. After all, in the normal course of events, many of us can reduce our risk as targets of violent crime, by controlling who we form intimate relationships with, who we associate with on a social basis, where we choose to live, etc. However, none of us can change our colour or our gender--practically speaking.
There is something about crimes based on hate which speaks to a common chord of revulsion in all of us, I think. The irrationality of these crimes (and the cruelty with which they are often carried out) is so alien to our sensibilities that we look for a way to take a community stance against it: To express our abhorrence by enacting laws.
We can understand a ghetto kid committing a robbery because he hasn't eaten in 2 days, and someone is killed. He is somebody's son. Someone's brother. We might have a fleeting moment of sadness at the human condition. It seems more difficult to feel sad about someone who chains someone to the bumper of their pick-up because of their skin color, and ends their life by a torture that beggars the comprehension.
I understand the purist legal viewpoint. And I don't expect that endless examples from either side will "prove" a point. The examples will be hand-picked and biased. I am speaking of the overall picture, and whether or not it can improve the safety of a community by raising the consciousness and the social expectation. I do not have a problem with categorizing crimes in order to make the punishment fit them as the saying goes. The essential point to me is that the punishment be defined for the community, that it be understood, and that it be impartially and honestly kept. I think crimes based on "reason" are less dangerous than crimes based on irrational hatred. "Rational" crimes sometimes give the victim a chance. But as I said--changing a Jew into a Gentile is rather difficult in practice. If two people walk late at night with money visible in their shirt pocket, they are both making bad choices if they are in a high crime neighbourhood. However, if the one gets only knocked down and robbed, while the other gets a knife ran through him because of skin color--well, doesn't this matter to our community, and ought we not to feel free to make the distinction between hate crimes and others--in order to pursue a safer environment and to increase the chances that our children will live to become adults?
You, yourself, have admitted to motive as a consideration. You obviously feel that provocation (one's daughter being raped) ought to mitigate the punishment. I am relying on the same principle of motivation and provocation, and I am saying that when there is none--the punishment ought to reflect that self-same principle as you have introduced.
Here is a brief article with a bias toward prosecuting hate crimes and maintaining the distincntion.
adl.org
Howard P. Berkowitz
National Chairman
Anti-Defamation League & Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1997
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Prescient words from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who may not have lived to hear the term "hate crimes" coined, but who certainly knew what hate crimes were.
The Consequences of Hate Crime
The Reverend King’s words serve as inspiration for the important November 10 White House Conference on Hate Crimes, which will focus national attention on a problem that has long plagued this country but has only recently emerged as a high priority. Racial assaults, cemetery desecrations, gay bashings, cross burnings, and countless other forms of bias-related criminal conduct are a sad but very real part of American history and of the contemporary American landscape. However, until relatively recently, they have never been identified and prosecuted as separate from other crimes, worthy of harsher sanctions because of the broader emotional and psychological impact they have on our neighborhoods and communities.
[H]ate crimes … can damage the fabric of our society and leave minority communities fearful, angry, and unwilling to trust the authorities whose responsibility it is to protect them.
By convening a national conference, President Clinton has recognized the importance of tackling bigotry and bias-motivated crimes head on. He understands that it does not matter if these crimes are sufficiently high profile to make national headlines, like Crown Heights, Rodney King, Black church arsons, and skinhead murders, or if they are more commonplace stories of vandalized synagogues, hateful graffiti, or threats against multi-racial couples -- they all cause enormous heartache. The President understands counteraction is necessary. If hate crimes are not given the priority attention they deserve, they can damage the fabric of our society and leave minority communities fearful, angry, and unwilling to trust the authorities whose responsibility it is to protect them.
White House Conference on Hate Crimes
Recognizing the importance of hate crimes is itself significant, but the full potential for this conference will only be realized if it sparks the development of a national prevention and education strategy to redress hate crimes. Hate crimes laws which provide for enhanced penalties, pioneered by the Anti-Defamation League and unanimously endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark 1993 case Wisconsin v. Mitchell, are vital to such a strategy, but are only one component of it.
In the course of the past two decades, some 40 states have enacted hate crimes laws. Obviously, the rest need to follow suit. However, the greatest challenge now in most jurisdictions is not the enactment of legislation, but implementation -- combined with educational initiatives intended to deter such crimes.
The White House conference will advance this process significantly if it encourages law enforcement agencies to make responding to hate crimes a priority. It will advance the process if it encourages the development of specific law enforcement policies, procedures, and -- where appropriate -- bias crime units, to systematize responses. It will advance the process if it inspires greater attention to police training and to the collection of data on hate crimes, as mandated by the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act and several state laws. And it will advance the process by addressing the special needs of victims of hate crimes, and setting an example of political leadership which could be echoed by government officials at all levels.
What Can Be Done?
Excellent resources are already available to assist communities in crafting effective procedures to respond to hate crimes. The FBI, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have all developed model policies and procedures, and a number of cities have implemented programs which could be replicated elsewhere. ADL resources include a guide to hate crimes laws, a handbook of existing hate crime policies and procedures, a hate crime training video, and a "Blueprint for Action" developed specifically for the White House conference. Many other participants in the White House conference will come to the table with their own programs and models, reflecting a shared commitment to mobilizing all of the resources our criminal justice system has at its disposal.
The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was absolutely correct in saying that "morality cannot be legislated"-- but it can be taught
The White House conference will also provide an opportunity to showcase creative educational programs designed to promote tolerance and to combat the prejudice that lies at the root of bias-motivated crimes. Here, too, there are many resources available to communities and schools interested in teaching tolerance and combating prejudice. By calling national attention to these resources and urging the broad implementation of anti-bias education programs, the President will take a big step toward reaching the many perpetrators of such crimes who are young people, still reachable and teachable.
The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was absolutely correct in saying that "morality cannot be legislated"-- but it can be taught. Ideally, it should be taught in every home, passed on from parent to child. In conveying this message, President Clinton could not find a better use for his bully pulpit. |
