Hate Crimes (And Terrorism) Revisited
Back in early May when the surge in Iraq was working and the erectile dysfunction of congressional Democrats was not so obvious, I took a shot at Captain Ed Morrissey for what I called his “beyond stoopid†assertion that if hate-crimes legislation was enacted to prosecute people for beating up gays then there would have to be laws protecting misogynists, short people, fat people and . . . you get the idea.
My unsolicited comment was offered in the context of the Great Protector himself threatening to veto any hate-crime legislation that protected people like Mary Cheney, the vice president’s daughter.
Captain Ed, who skippers Captain’s Quarters, one of the tightest ships in the conservative blogosphere, fired back and said that I had taken his remarks out of context, which in retrospect I do not believe I did, but . . .
Be that as it may, the Captain has put up a couple of more posts (here and here) on the hate-crimes issue and invited my thoughts.
For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to address only one of The Captain’s two posts — a commentary on a case in which two 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their high school. (One girl has been denied bail because of her lengthy juvenile record.)
The Captain said that:
This is the problem with hate-crime legislation — and perhaps with terrorist legislation as well . . .Both specifically criminalize motive, rather than leave them as a component of an objective crime itself. Beating up a gay person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not. Similarly, terrorism as a civil crime (ie, not in the context of foreigners attacking the U.S.) also creates a thought-police mentality that is pretty seductive to people determined to stamp out evil — in their subjective opinion of it.
He notes that the logical extension of such efforts is to punish people for their speech, adding:
What’s next? Do we incarcerate Jack Chick for his hate-speech fliers about Catholics? Do we arrest people and charge them with felonies for making supportive statements about al-Qaeda, even if they commit no other crimes in doing so, like financial support or passing along targeting information for attacks?
I’m starting to think that hate crimes and terrorism designators both take us down a dangerous road. If the criminal act doesn’t carry enough deterrent through normal penalties, then increase the penalties for everyone who commits them — whether it be battery, arson, or murder. Let the motivation prove the crime rather than become a crime in itself. Otherwise, we invite a thought-police mentality that will ensnare American liberty more than it does evil.
Touché, Captain Ed. At the risk of wearing out home run metaphors, the Captain has hit the ball out of the park this time by linking what seem to be two very different things and putting both in a perspective that I can endorse.
9 Responses to “Hate Crimes (And Terrorism) Revisited”
Better to learn late than never, Shaun.
Oddly enough I said something similar last night regarding an “ecoterrorism” case that has begun the sentencing phase.
Glad you two can agree. Ed is undoubtedly one of the most reasonable and thoughtful bloggers on the right and I have to say I agree with both of you on the topic at hand.
Dyre42 brings up ecoterrorism and is right to include that as a stupid moniker. Burning down an empty ski lodge is arson, not terrorism.
Eco-terrorism Case Revisited
Last night I posted about a group of radical environmentalists that may be sentenced as terrorists and today I ran across a discussion over at TMV between Shaun Mullen and Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters that originally started about hate crime leg…
I think you’ve missed the point here. There are already hate crimes laws – the issue is whether to extend coverage under them to crimes committed against people like me.
No Holly, it is YOU that missed the point.
The point was not that we need more or expanded hate crime laws, it is that hate crime laws are a bad thing, and should be eliminated.
Heck, those girls are being charged for thought, er, hate crime against GAYS, one being held without bail, simply for speech that did not advocate or incite violence.
What more are you looking for? You want maybe the death penalty for speaking against the causes you believe in?
Beating up a gay person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not.
…and that is the current problem. At this time, in many parts of the country, it doesn’t carry the same penalty. It’s just a case of a “dumb faggot” getting what he deserved.
The point was not that we need more or expanded hate crime laws, it is that hate crime laws are a bad thing, and should be eliminated.
I see people here and in the blogosphere saying that but not in the right wing media or in Washington. There it is all about creating special rights for gays, ignoring the fact that the “special rights” already exist. Saying the concept should be struck down is a consistent argument but it’s not one the right wing politicians and talking heads are making.
Does it need to be said yet again that our criminal justice system already dictates different punishments depending upon motive?