Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?
It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.
Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.
I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?
The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.
So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.
No comments:
Post a Comment