I find the very idea of hate crimes abhorrent to our system of government and justice. Americans, no matter how heinous their views may be, should never be punished because of their opinions.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Brandon Scott on The Greatest Movie Ever?
- V on The Top 4: Movies about first contact
- Lucas Watson on Axel F!
- Evie Roberts on Sarah Palin’s Awful Media Relations
- Samaal on Light Posting…
- Jack Burton on Status Report
- 2nd Circuit on Status Report
- Jack Burton on Wrong equation, Barb
- Jack Burton on Wrong equation, Barb
- Drew on Wrong equation, Barb
Conn, a fundamental tenet of criminal law is that in order to be prosecuted for a crime there must be: (1) an actus reus (i.e., an act); and (2) a mens rea (a proper motive/criminal mind). Thererfore, it is outright preposterous to argue that anyone being prosecuted for a hate crime is being targeted solely for their opinions.
Surely hate crime legislation seeks to prosecute individuals who have a bias against certain groups. But until these individuals actually commit some act, they cannot be prosecuted. That’s a fundamental principle of criminal law. Nobody’s being prosecuted solely because of their opinions.
The Southern Avenger seems to make the argument that there should be no specific crimes for acts against specific groups. However, the Supreme Court seems to suggest that the First Amendment does not protect hate crimes. See, e.g., Virginia v. Black (holding that expressions which constitute a “true threat” are not protected under the First Amendment). Moreover, as a matter of public policy, hate crime legislation is good in the hope that it acts as a deterrent against crimes against traditionally targeted and unprotected groups. The Souther Avenger’s argument that there then should be hate crime legislation for crimes against whites is not only irrelevant to this point, but also shows no evidence that crimes committed by blacks against whites are racially motviated. On the other hand, the acts which the current hate crime legislation seeks to criminalize is motivated by some bias against a particular group.
The issue is that hate crimes serve as sentence enhancements. The criminal is getting additional years tacked on to his sentence because he or she committed a crime with a certain opinion (i.e. racism, homophobia, etc.). That is punishing thought pure and simple. Why should someone already going to prison for assault or murder have to serve an additional few years because of certain opinions he or she may harbor? It’s not like they are getting away with the underlying crime.
I think you’re confusing the criminalization of “opinion” with the criminalization of “motive.” To the extent that defendants do in fact receive increased sentences under hate crimes, I see hate crimes as punishing motive, which you’re calling opinion. Individuals who commit hate crimes indeed have a certain opinion. But this opinion serves as the motive for their crime. And perhaps while hate crimes indirectly punish opinion, the legislation is in fact really just punishing the motive based on this opinion (in addition to punishing the act itself). It’s a subtle but important distinction, as any criminal statute is intended to punish a criminal motive, which I’m sure if often based on some opinion or belief.
In any event, I don’t see how you can justify protection of an opinion when it leads one to act violently. Once an opinion crosses the line to inciting violence, that opinion no longer deserves protection in my opinion. Holding an opinion is one thing, but when it leads one to commit a criminal act, the act plus the opinion need to be condemned. Hate crime legislation, to the extent that it indirectly punishes opinion, should be embraced as a matter of public policy to the extent that it deters any opinions which lead individuals to violence.
I take issue with your claim this is an “indirect” punishment of a person’s personal thoughts and beliefs (although an “indirect” assault would still be unacceptable). Motive can be used against someone in a criminal prosecution, but ultimately the criminal is punished for the physical acts he or she undertook – not WHY he or she undertook them. Wanting to rob someone of money isn’t a crime, stealing a credit card is a crime. Hating a person because he or she is black isn’t a crime, assaulting that person is a crime.
If one’s opinion leads him or her to commit a crime then that person should be convicted of the infraction. If one’s opinion leads him or her to incite others to violence then there has been the necessary actus reus to warrant prosecution. If, for example, one believes that all Jews or blacks should be killed, but does nothing more than voice that opinion I fail to see the crime.