|
I have tried a
lot of things in this column but have never asked my readers for help. Still,
there’s a first time for everything and I’m not too proud to admit I need a
hand.
Hate crimes are
in the news these days and understandably so. California seems particularly
hard hit, with shootings at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles and the
related slaying of a Filipino mail carrier, arson fires at Sacramento area
synagogues, and the murders of four women in Yosemite all thought to fit that
fetid mold. Forty-two states now carve out special penalties for these
offenses, as do federal statutes.
Having largely won the battle to establish these laws proponents are now
focusing their attention on broadening them. But why? Regardless of what
squirms in the hearts of those who hate, how have we come to accept that the
thoughts of the criminal deserve punishment beyond that for their acts?
I am personally
loathe to believe some folks are simply more (and conversely, some less) worthy
of protection than others, although many apparently think otherwise. Witness
the recent testimony of U.S. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking in
favor of a hate crime bill that is currently before Congress. Holder told the
House Judiciary Committee that while assault with intent to kill is “always
worthy of prosecution,” an attack on a gay person is even more serious and worth
special consideration. I suspect he represents the views of many in the Justice
Department.
But consider
Holder’s statement, scratch the word “gay,” and substitute anything you like –
or don’t. Say, for instance, “heterosexual.” Or Christian, atheist,
left-handed, able-bodied, disabled, young, elderly, white, black, left-handed,
short, blond, bald, or homely. Does it make sense with any adjective? If you
think so, turn the sentence around and ask which of these groups are
intrinsically less deserving of consideration. Still make sense?
Testifying for
the same bill, the mother and grandmother of two of the Yosemite victims said
the measure is needed to “send a message to perpetrators that violence against
women will be punished.” You will find no one more sympathetic to these
families than I, nor of stronger belief that whoever committed the murders
should receive the severest penalty allowed – I doubt my suggestion would stand
a Constitutional test. But shouldn’t we aim that message at all criminals?
Still, she
might be close to the truth. Maybe hate crime laws are an attempt to force the
justice system to do what it should in the first place. Murder, arson, assault,
and the other underlying acts of hate crime are already illegal, but often too
lightly punished. If my loved ones or I fell prey to such deeds I would want
justice too; perhaps this is one way to get it.
Cynical
political advantage is clearly part of it. I’m not talking about the families
of victims here, but those who fashion themselves champions of the downtrodden
need two things: one, issues, and two, the downtrodden. While there are
verifiable supplies of both in this country, the greater issues don’t always
make for the best press. Perhaps the emotional heat makes hate crime the best
bandwagon going right now.
Or maybe it’s some combination of the above. Just as I don’t think victim’s
relatives are in it for political advantage while others are, perhaps there are
subsets of hate crime law supporters. Yet whatever the answer, I am serious
about asking for help. If I get enough replies, if I get proposals that hold up
to reason, I will excerpt them in a future column. Contact me at the email or
snail mail addresses below.
While I know
that “justice for all” has too often been more of an ideal than a reality, it
will take a pretty convincing argument before I buy the notion that
institutionalizing discriminatory justice is the solution. Maybe the best I can
hope for is to better understand those who do. Either way, if you think you
have an answer, please give it a try.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
