Last week the House of Representatives expanded the Federal Hate Crimes bill to include sexual orientation as a basis of discrimination which could lead to increased sentences for offenders. This bill has led to reinvigoration of debate over hate crimes legislation in general.
Opponents to hate crimes legislation believe it is inappropriate to increase the severity of criminal punishment because of what the criminal was thinking when they committed the crime. “The motivation for a crime shouldn’t affect the sentencing,” said one prominent conservative.
Okay it wasn’t actually a prominent conservative, it was Token from South Park. But still, non-animated people have this opinion too. And it doesn’t make sense.
The motivation for a crime should always affect sentencing. Crimes committed during a heat of passion are different than premeditated crimes, and are different than crimes committed accidentally. The whole point of a criminal justice system is to provide penalties that suit the crime in order to deter people from committing them.
Let’s say a person is killed. The person responsible for their death could be charged for first degree murder (generally meaning the killing was premeditated or committed during a violent crime), second degree murder (unplanned but intentional killing), voluntary manslaughter (as a result of a violent act, but without the intention to kill), involuntary manslaughter (accidentally, but as a result of come criminally negligent act), and several other less severe manslaughter charges. The resulting penalties for each of these charges varies greatly, and for good reason.
This is a bit of a simplification and statutes vary slightly from state to state. But the point remains that the penalty for a crime varies in order to appropriately punish the person committing it. So the only appropriate legal question when it comes to hate crimes is whether or not it’s worse to kill out of bigotry.
Hate crimes are worse than regular crimes because they attack more than just the victim, they attack everyone in the targeted group. They take away freedom to live as you choose, free from fear of threats to your life and health. In effect, it is a form of terrorism, and the people that commit them know this.
It makes sense to broaden the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation because the fact is that many people are attacked for exactly this reason. The FBI estimates that over 16% of all violent hate crimes are based on sexual orientation based on 2007 data.
Hate crimes are not always prosecuted appropriately. In some cases they are tacked on to cases where the actual motivating factor is just a personal or criminal dispute; the fact that the victim is a different ethnicity or sexual orientation is simply a coincidence. Sometimes they are not used when they should, such as in black-on-white crime where it would be politically inconvenient. But these types of things happen often in the criminal justice system, because prosecutors must answer to elected officials, who must be responsible to voters. Problems with implementation does not undermine the fundamentally sound principle of hate crimes.
I am not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of TV.
you are absolutely correct to emphasize the mens rea element of a criminal act, but my problem with hate crime laws is nearly identical with my problem with capital punishment - it is so hard to properly apply and prove. The difficulty in proving a hate crime, or the ability to paint a normal crime as a hate crime makes it somewhat of an unjust law. also, prosecutors have a GREAT deal of power in our criminal justice system, and since many of them gain promotions by the number of convictions, convictions in high profile cases, etc. as a practical matter they have a high incentive to get convictions and sensationalize cases. many are highly ethical and do not do this, however there is a significant minority that is very dangerous. I would rather not have hate crime legislation if it will decrease the number of unjust convictions or unfair sentences. Prosecutors have plenty of ammo already, and the jury is never kind to a hateful bigot.
Dude…no matter how hateful you think one person can be…you can’t be in defense of hate crime laws. It’s…seriously…judging how you or I think. It’s thoughtcrime. I’m against persecution against ANYBODY…gays…my sister is a lesbian and I love her…but if you defend any “hate crime” legislation…you are for the nightmare world where the government thinks they can legislate what we think. I don’t care how much evidence you can present in a court of law, you are legislating thought and feelings. And fuck you if you think you have the power to legislate that. you cannot read my mind. I like you, will clarke, and I respect you and want to be your friend. But if you DARE to tell me how i should think or feel…then fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I do not need any government or any peer group telling me what I should think. I think people who beat up or KILL gays are disgusting and dispicable human beings. But their crimes (of murder) shouldn’t be judged at all beyond what their crimes actually were. anybody who does anything that despicable -
does it with hate in their heart. You people promoting the ideals of thoughtcrime make me sick.