Hate Crimes vs. Domestic Terrorism
I find myself in a bit of an ethical dilemma this weekend, reading the story of a convicted domestic terrorist who will be spending quite some time in jail. (Bear with me for a bit and the title will make sense.)
A radical activist who helped set a $1 million fire to protest research on genetically modified crops was sentenced Thursday to nearly 22 years in prison _ even more than the prosecution recommended.
Marie Mason decided to “elevate her grievances beyond the norms of civilized society” through fire and destruction, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney said. The case _ which was prosecuted as domestic terrorism _ was “about an abandonment of the marketplace of ideas,” he added.
The 47-year-old Mason, of Cincinnati, had acted on behalf of the radical group Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, which has been implicated in a spate of similar crimes, mostly in the West.
First, a disclaimer. I really dislike P.E.T.A. I’ve always felt that their radical and sometimes violent tendencies bring a pall on legitimate animal care organizations. ELF is worse than that on a whole new scale. They truly are terrorists, in my opinion, and deserve everything they have coming to them. With that in mind, you might think I would read the above story and not have much to say except three cheers for justice. And you’d be right, had I not read this piece on the subject from our friend Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, which is what leaves me in the aforementioned quandary.
Her defense team professed shock at the sentence, calling it far out of proportion to other sentences for the same crimes. Well, that’s the point. For far too long, courts have coddled domestic terrorists of certain political strains. Where some have rightly thrown the book at anti-tax militias and those who commit violence at abortion clinics, leftist terrorists who commit arsons and bombings for their causes have gotten treated as misdirected darlings.
No longer, or at least not in Maloney’s court. The judge got this exactly right. Political terrorism undermines democracy at its roots. Instead of pursuing change through debate and organization, Mason attempted to frighten people into surrendering to the will of a tiny, fringe movement.
Well, thanks for just ruining my day. Here I was, perfectly content to read that story and be happy about it, but then you had to go and mess it up for me. You see, Ed points out something that immediately puts me off about this story, and the root of it lies with other types of criminal activity altogether. Long time readers will already know that I am opposed to pretty much all hate crime legislation. I won’t go into some huge, long winded diatribe on it here, but suffice it to say that I feel people need to be prosecuted for the things that they do; not for the what they are thinking when they do it. And citizens deserve equal recourse to and protection under the law, without some victims and their families getting special treatment – including additional law enforcement resources or stiffer penalites – for the same crime just because of what the perpetrators were thinking. This, of course, brings us back to Ms. Mason.
Just how stiff of a penalty was it that she received to draw such theatrical exhortations from the judge at its pronouncement? I did some checking, and it seems that you can burn down quite a bit of real estate in this country and not draw all that much time in the crowbar motel.
From the US Sentencing Commission Annual Report for 2003, the average (mean) arson sentence was 82.7 months (6.9 yrs) and the median sentence was 60 months (5 yrs), for arson as a primary offense in 82 convictions/sentences (http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2003/SBTOC03.htm, Table 13).
Actual length of imprisonment for repeat offenders (Category III criminal history) spent an average of 11 years for arson with 8 years being the average for all categories (Table 14). This is compared to the average murder sentence of 20.6 years (median 15 yrs), sexual abuse 6 years (median 3.4 yrs), and assault 2.5 years (median 1.25 yrs).
In fact, all sorts of cases turned up where where really heinous arsonists have been caught and handed considerably lesser sentences. In fact, one Maryland case had a conspiracy among several arsonists who wiped out an entire development causing more than ten million dollars in damage for the stated purpose of keeping black people out of their neighborhood.
GREENBELT, Md. – One of five men charged in an arson spree at a suburban Washington housing development pleaded guilty Thursday to taking part in what prosecutors said was a crime aimed at black families moving into the neighborhood.
Jeremy D. Parady, 20, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit arson. Prosecutors planned to ask for nearly 10 years in prison and restitution of $4.18 million. Sentencing was set for June 14.
You can view some other ATF cases against arsonists who caused more mayhem and received closer to the median sentences here and here.
I did find another arsonist, Adam Seth Anderson, who received a similar penalty of 22 to 25 years in prison. But his crime spree went well beyond simple arson. Anderson was also convicted of “kidnapping, robbing, raping and sodomizing a 21-year-old woman, stabbing her 19 times, and leaving her for dead after throwing her body into a tributary of the Siuslaw River west of Walton.”
So, in the end, the news of the ELF case is ruined for me. We need to keep in mind that our system of justice has very different standards for “true” terrorists who are foreigners committing acts of terrorism either here or abroad. These differ from the treatment owed to American citizens committing crimes – no matter how terrorist in nature – on American soil.
Had the judge simply said that it was one of the worst cases of arson he had ever seen (he did not) and that she was a terrible risk for recidivism (he did) then one could almost forgive him. I say “almost” because the amount of burning done doesn’t match up to many of the other referenced cases. And in terms of repeat offenders, a “domestic terrorist” won’t fill the bill. They may or may not burn something else if they can find a suitable target which their co-conspirators can agree on. An actual pyromaniac is pretty much a sure thing to light something else up. Instead, the judge decided to launch into a speech showing how serious he is about domestic terrorism and deliver a sentence which was in excess of even what the prosecutor requested.
Similarly, Ed has chosen to cheer on this decision as a victory for justice, showing a judge who is as serious about punishing “left wing” terrorists as they are about people such as Timothy McVeigh or KKK members. Had he simply said that all arsonists needed to have much stiffer sentences, I could get on board with it, but he did not. Emotionally, I could get behind taking every member of ELF and locking them up with the keys being dropped off the end of a long pier. Unfortunately, to be consistent with the idea of equal justice for all Americans under the law, we have to disapprove of the judge’s handling of the case, as no favor was done for our system of constitutional law here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Hate Crimes vs. Domestic Terrorism”
I find one problem. You're defining her as an arsonist. What she was doing was trying to intimidate people to stop doing something she didn't like. Using violence to achieve a political end. Unless she's declared herself to not be an American citizen and a rebel that makes her a terrorist, like McVeigh. She's not simply an arsonist, she's a terrorist. Sentence her as such. GIve her what the Unibomber got if you're opposed to the death penalty.
[...] Jazz Shaw has an interesting point: does this equate hate crimes prosecution? Read the whole [...]
[...] Jazz Shaw has an interesting point: does this equate hate crimes prosecution? Read the whole [...]
[...] Jazz Shaw who writes at the Moderate Voice, kind of agrees with [...]
Excellent post–much food for thought.
I sympathize with your concerns, but I think your comments are a bit off-point.
First, just to get this out of the way, Morrisey is ridiculously full of shit about judges not punishing left-wing violence. First, there is hardly any left-wing violence in the US, at least since the Wobblies kicked it. There was a brief spate of anti-war protest violence in the late 60s, most of it quite minor in objective fact, and most restricted to a few of the most radical groups. It coincided in time with (a) massive and often violent government crackdowns on liberal groups and causes of all kinds, ranging from infiltration of civil rights groups to agent provocateurism to outright murder, and, simultaneously, (b) almost complete immunity for widespread right-wing intimidation and violence, including epidemic-level lynching, intimidation and murder of voter registration activists and civil rights workers, and routine violence by white against blacks in and out of the civil rights movement, as well as commonplace police violence against gays, draft resisters, and other non-conformists. Today, there is a tiny “direct action” environmentalist movement by the ELF/ALF assholes, who are entirely unsupportable but have never killed or injured a human being. There is also a longstanding history of overt terroristic violence, murder, and harassment by right-wing groups of all kinds, ranging from abortion clinic terrorists to white-power militias to – as usual – systematized police brutality against minorities and liberal activists; all of these movements have resulted in murder and other serious crimes, and virtually never result in arrest or conviction. The overwhelming favoritism the law has always shown for right-wing violence against supposed liberal targets, and the overwhelming frequency of such acts as compared with leftist criminal acts, is impossible to mistake other than by deliberate distortion. (Note, for instance, that the FBI now officially classifies ELF/ALF as one of the US's leading threats of domestic terrorism, while they virtually ignored the organized abortion clinic terrorism network – responsible for literally tens of thousands of incidents of property damage, at least 17 attempted murders, 7 murders, 2 kidnappings, and many other crimes – for decades.)
As for ELF, however, it appears this was not in fact treated as a “hate crime” – nor should it have been. And it was not treated as an ordinary arson – the central question being whether or not it should have been. The operative distinction here is not between arsons that are or are not politically motivated, but between arsons that are and are not terrorism. That seemingly-subtle distinction is in fact a major one.
The defendant here was prosecuted on charges of terrorism, not arson. If that is the correct charge, then the appropriate comparison regarding sentencing is to other similar acts of terroristic property damage – not to cases of simple arson. Terrrorism is usually defined as acts or threats of violence committed for their psychological impact upon third parties, not for their direct impact on the immediate victim. But terroristic acts can also have an immediate impact as part of their payoff. In the case of ELF, it is clear, from the symbolic nature of some of their targets (bombing the same SUV dealership that an ELF member was convicted for previously bombing), and the political messages and explicit warnings they often issue in conjunction with violent acts, that their intention is to scare people away from doing things the members of ELF disapprove of – and thus could be considered terrorism. But they also pick targets that have some obvious relation to the issue they are protesting – the obviously intend to damage whatever it is about their specific targets that they object to, in most cases, not just send a message. In Mason's particular case, it is hard to tell whether the act was “only” a direct act of violence intended for its immediate impact, or an act of terrorism intended to intimidate a large group of targets. (It doesn't help that, in addition to being a violent criminal, she was an incompetent dipshit as well: the crop she burned wasn't genetically modified, the institution she targeted doesn't do research with genetically modified crops at all, and the fire she started also killed organisms of endangered species.) But if it was terrorism in fact, it ought to be prosecuted and punished as terrorism, not as simple arson. In this case, it was prosecuted as terrorism, and that was the charge she was convicted on, so comparisons to “ordinary” arsons are irrelevant. (There are, of course, terroristic arsons – arson is a favorite tool of racist intimidation, as you note in one of your examples. But those cases ought to be punished much more vigorously, also.)
The outcome in this case may or may not be the right one – it was pretty harsh in any event, and I doubt most other non-fatal terror fires would result in such a sentence – but it has to be addressed on the right grounds. You can argue that she should have been charged only with arson, not terrorism, or you can argue that her sentence was too harsh because other terrorists got lighter sentences, but you can't argue that her sentence for terrorism was too harsh because regular arsonists got lighter ones. In the eyes of the law, at least, she wasn't a “regular” arsonist.
As to whether people should be prosecuted for “what they were thinking”, do keep in mind that very many crimes are defined by the actor's state of mind while committing them (and that mens rea – a state of “guilty mind” – has always been a pre-requisite for guilt in every crime, a fact which underlies the concept of being “not guilty by reason of insanity”). The difference between first or second-degree murder, and between murder and manslaughter, depend precisely on the intent of the killer, even where their actions may be identical in all cases. The same is true in countless other examples.
The problem with “hate crimes” legislation – if there is one – is that it infringes upon freedom of speech and of personal creed: some “hate crimes” consist of nothing more than saying something hateful, or of holding certain beliefs while committing a crime, which are liberties we want to protect no matter how distastefully they may be used. But the question of beliefs one holds while committing a crime has nothing to do with the issue of one's intended effect in committing the crime. Your specific purpose and goal, along with the actual outcome of your actions, are relevant to how serious the crime is. Burning someone's house down because you don't like them is one thing. Burning someone's house down because you don't like them because they're black is arguably worse, though prosecuting for that treads upon the freedoms of creed and association. But burning someone's house down in an attempt to scare all other black people out of the neighborhood is far worse, and for reasons that have nothing to do with your personal feelings and everything to do with the overt impact of the crime and the lack of any reasonable justification for deliberately harming innocent third parties. The first example given is an “ordinary” crime which affects just the direct victim; the second example is a “hate crime” which also affects just the victim but is motivated by prejudice; the final example is a completely different crime – the crime of terrorism, which affects many more people, (probably) much more seriously, which was in fact your intention in committing the crime (i.e., this is the content of your mens rea). Maria Mason was charged with terrorism, not a hate crime. They are not the same, and, whatever we may think of the idea of hate crimes, terrorism is a real and serious problem, and is rightly taken seriously by the courts.
OK – I'm really pissed at ryofargghhh, who posted, an hour ago, in three lines, what it took me an hour to write in seven paragraphs.
So . . . what he said (but more of it).
FYI, ktkeith, I found your seven paragraphs much more enlightening than ryofargghh's quick comment, mostly because his comment was ruined by the comparison at the end to the unibomber, who killed quite a number of people, while this terrorist/arsonist killed no one. Anyway, I thank you for the time it took to write your argument.
[...] Think about it. Edit: Ok, I’ve read a few articles now. I actually want to point you to an anti-Marie Mason article that makes more sense than any of the anti-eco diatribes you usually read about these issues. While this writer feels that Mason is a terrorist, he [...]
ktkeith, your comment was infinitely valuable.
I'd like to emphasize your explanation of mens rea. I wonder how many anti-hate crimes people would maintain their opposition if they fully understood how central intent–what the actor is thinking–is to virtually every crime. (The only exception I can think of is statutory rape–a strict liability crime.)
How we judge the intent behind an act has significant ramifications to society at large. If we didn't look at intent, accidental deaths would be treated as murders and that would alter public behavior greatly. For example, people will drive a lot less or not at all, if hitting someone with their car accidentally will get them sent away for life like Charles Manson. I don't have a problem with hate crimes because assessing the effect on society/public behavior is always relevant in determining severity of punishment.
Hate crimes often instill fear in a group of people, a la terrorism. If we all seem to agree that terrorism is worse than ordinary murder because of its impact on society at large, why can't we agree that a race-motivated murder is worse than ordinary murder because of its impact on society at large? Is “Death to America” worse than “Death to Queers” or “Death to Jews”?
that I feel people need to be prosecuted for the things that they do; not for the what they are thinking when they do it.
Here! Here!
But cheer up this woman will appeal. The appeal will be heard by a left wing judge who then will reduce the sentence down to around 4-7 years and shes out in 16 months.
There was a brief spate of anti-war protest violence in the late 60s, most of it quite minor in objective fact, and most restricted to a few of the most radical groups.
i'd say the 60's violence was quite violent. The White Panthers, Yippies and the Black Panthers did alot more damage than the PETA anarchist crowd today. Rich white radicals like Rudd and Ayers get a wrist slap, while the BP were hunted down and killed.
Bush committed hate crimes like a domestic terrorist.
George W. Bush had been a hate-crime criminal (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/ge… “George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes”).
Bush was absolute evil.
George W. Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush will go down in history in infamy.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
Speaking of hate crime(s):
George W. Bush had been a hate-crime criminal (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/ge… “George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes”).
Bush was absolute evil.
George W. Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush will go down in history in infamy.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG