Thursday, December 02, 2004

Hate Crimes and Their Punishment

I spend a lot of time reading the conservative blogs. I like to find out what the "other side" is thinking. One concept that has popped up on a number of blogs is the issue of Hate Crimes. Generally, I see that conservative bloggers find the notion of extra punishment for a crime motivated against another American due to race, gender or sexual orientation is wrong. The consensus seems to be that it should be prosecuted like any other assault or murder case. This is why I disagree:

In the majority of criminal cases, the intent of the perpetrator is relevant. This is called mens rea - meaning the guilty mind. If you trip on the subway and accidentally punch someone, it is not assault because you did not have the intent to harm that person. But, if you find out that your next door neighbor has been stealing your morning paper and you go over to his house and slug him, it is assault because you had the intent to cause bodily harm - you has the requisite mens rea to be prosecuted for assault. A crime that is motivated by "hate" of another person due to race, gender or sexual orientation is especially relevant to intent. A hate crime is terrorism and nothing less. It is not a akin to a mugging or convince store robbery where someone gets shot. A hate crime does much more than just cause harm to the victim, it causes terror in a community.

The definition of Terrorism is: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

This is exactly what the perpetrator of a hate crime intends to do. Someone who commits a hate crime is not doing it for the money. By causing bodily harm to a single individual, it sends a message to the rest of that targeted community, do what we want or else. When the KKK lynches a black man, it is a means of coercion to the rest of the black community. The KKK is nothing more than a group of thug terrorists. When two men take a homosexual out into the words, tie him to a wood fence, and then beat him to death, it is a message to the rest of the gay community to, "get back in the closet or your next." The men who beat Matthew Shepard to death are not mere murders, but are terrorists to the gay community. The goal of the KKK or "fag" beaters is the same as Mohammad Atta and the rest of the Islamic extremists. The goal is the systemic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Think how unsafe you felt as an America after 9/11. We could be struck any time, any place. The feeling is the same for those in black neighborhoods where crosses are burnt and churches are bombed. If we are to hunt down terrorists and treat them as more that mere criminals (as I agree we should do), then we have to do the same for those domestic terrorists who willingly single out other Americans in order to send a message to the rest of the targeted community. Not only have they killed but they have struck terror into the hearts of fellow Americans and committed a crime so heinous as to deserve extra punishment.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good stuff. This is why I read liberal websites. I do not totally agree but this is the best defense of "hate crimes" laws I've read. Thanks.

Chris/PM

sofyst said...

Um...I think I would agree. The severity of the crime should be equal to the severity of the punishment, would you agree? Would you then be in favor of the death penalty?

Dingo said...

I agree that the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. That is one of the problems I have with the current mandatory sentencing guidelines we have for many crimes. First, they do not allow for leeway to fit the punishment to the crime. Second, it is unfair because similar crimes are treated much differently. For instance, powder vs. crack cocaine. Crack carries a much stiffer penalty than powder cocaine even though it is basically the same thing.

As for the death penalty, I would support it if the terrorists have committed murder, but I would not support it for cross burning or other intimidation tactics.

Thanks for your comments and sofyst, we will get back to our prior conversation when I get some things in the office done.