All murder is hate...but some hate is better than other hate?

This is a great article on the misguided hate crimes legislation.

We are on the verge of categorizing hate based on who it is expressed against or perpetrated upon. To paraphrase a George Orwell novel: all are equal -- but some are more equal than others.

It's a unique kind of discrimination.  It's discrimination under the cloak of legislation, and sold as anti-discrimination.

Hate crimes are crimes more dastardly than mere crime. They are special crimes defined by hate ... that is, a certain kind of hate ... depending on who you hate.

Furthermore, it creates an awfully subjective standard.  Recently, we've had some controversy over the prosecution of hate crimes against demographics not considered minorities, like white males.  We now have "anti-discrimination" legislation fostering racial conflict.

With all of this attention to the types of hate that might motivate crime, one would think that we have covered the worst of deeds with our modern legalese. One would think.

King David murdered Uriah the Hittite? Hate? Not under the new improved hate crimes law. His was the lesser, kinder kind of murder, killing a man to gain access to his beautiful wife.

What if O.J. Simpson actually confessed to the two brutal murders proved to be his deed by blood and DNA? He would finally be imprisoned to pay for the slaughter. But hate? Nope. These were the lesser, kinder kind of murders, killing a wife who wanted her freedom and a man who made the ultimate sacrifice to save her.

By definition, until now, murder has always been considered a hate crime. But soon, encoding into our law a special kind of crime defined as hate, we will have by exclusion reduced all other crimes to something less than.

Creating one class of victim that is hurt by hate, to the exclusion of other victims who are merely annoyed by hate, we have fulfilled the Orwellian prophecy that predicted the reduction of equality into something other than. All animals are created equal ... but some are more equal than others.

We have become too sophisticated to see the obvious. By legally reserving our deepest compassion for a limited set of victims, we have diminished our ability to protect one another in a civilized world where hate is called what it is regardless of who is hated.

Murder is final. It is no less painful because the law says it is the lesser, kinder, gentler murder.

The more we work to define what kinds of hate are worse than others, the more we all need to worry about being left behind in the group of people outside the circle of protection. There are no degrees of good hate and kinder murder. Hate is hate.

Comments

[Friendly Critic]

Kristan: The question you pose as to whether or not one kind of hate has more weight before the law is not an invalid point. I personally struggle with that. But I would only ask you this serious question: Can you say, with intellectual honesty, that gays and lesbians did not exist, and that because of a spate of church burnings and the like had caused a wave of murders and crimes against people clearly because they were Christians, would there be the same principled outcry against legislation based on hatred based on religion? I know, I know.....one doesn't respond to hypothetical questions.

[Kurt]

Maybe there would be outcry, but it shouldn't be for special laws punishing criminals for for attacking Christians.

Hypothetically, though, I would support the following instead of hate crimes legislation: Prosecutor Carl Brizzi recognizes a severe uptick in violence against homosexuals in Indianapolis. He puts a prosecutor specifically on the task of putting these criminals in jail. This is what we do with drug crimes, mafia prosecution, and previously the KKK.

[Friendly Critic]

I would think your idea concerning possible heightened prosecutorial action in response to an outbreak of crimes against homosexuals, but given that this would still represent a judgement, by a state action, that homosexuals were worth more of an investment of time and money than other folks? I'm not sure I see a difference between your hypotheticl situation and one codified into law, especially the type, currently under consideration in Indiana talking about an element in sentencing as opposed to a separate crime. If your reply is that the "severe uptick" in antigay crime would be temporary, it could be that over time the need for a particular piece of legislation becomes unnecessary and it gets repealed. Since there appears, for example, to currently be no discernable employment discrimination against lefthanded people, no specific legislation is on the books. If that began to happen, then arguably such would be appropriate. I think you have at least recognized that certain situations involving certain groups of citizens can legitimately require the dedication of targeted resources without that being seen as a "worth determination" of that particular group. A step in the right direction, for sure.

[Kristen]

The difference as I see it is that you're not changing the penalties for the crime. But it still sends a strong message. The same would apply to any increase in crime, whether it be gang-related, or related to a type of crime, or maybe just a geographic area. The principle of course being that you address problem areas as they arise as a matter of good policy, without setting different subjective standards.

[Hmm...]

Then why aren't you working to repeal the federal hate/ bias crimes measures that protect religion, national origin and race? Why are YOU (as a religious person) protected already by federal statute.. and Kristen (as a woman) -- and not others. Isn't the argument just that you don't want "certain people" covered?

If you were intellectually consistent, you'd call for the repeal of ALL bias crimes laws in the country.

By the way, every crime committed by a white person on a black person-- or vice versa -- does not qualify as a hate crime. The intention to intimidate a whole group or class has to figure into that.

AND-- no policeman is ever gonna drag a pastor away for preaching hate against blacks or gays (see KKK)--- unless he then goes out and perpetrates a CRIME against them. Speak all the hate you want... but don't be surprised if the "gay mafia" horsewhips you. Then we have a crime.

[Friendly Critic]

This appears to be part of the "inconsistency" that Kenn is talking about in the "Jesusland" thread. And believe me, folks, I am hearing more and more folks in a certain un-named political party taking notice and wondering about a course-correction.

[Kristen]

How do you know I'm not working for that, Hmmm?

Personally, I think the entire hate crimes bill is a waste of paper. And I'm speaking for myself alone, here.

[Kurt]

Hmmm...

That's why we've opposed hate crimes legislation in Indiana.

I think we've got our hands full with current hate crimes debates, but I don't have any problem with repealing every hate crime statute in the US.