Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Over at the Daily Caller, conservative novelist Rick Robinson responds to the recent violent assault on a transgender woman at a Maryland McDonald's by saying the right should rethink its opposition to hate crimes legislation. His case:
Personally, I favor hate crimes legislation. But I am a proponent for reasons that would make the heads of my liberal friends metaphorically explode.
The left usually accepts four purposes of criminal punishment: social control, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restitution. I nearly started a riot at law school when I suggested to my criminal law professor that there was a fifth purpose — retribution.
Society, I explained, needed to see that its justice system is willing to extract an ounce of flesh from criminals in order to assure the most vulnerable that the social contract works. People feel the need to inflict harm on those who cause harm. The death penalty, I surmised, had little to do with deterrence and everything to do with retribution.
Judged by the standards of the typical hate crimes rationale, this is indeed a novel approach (though the broader case for retribution as a justification for criminal punishment is perhaps less scarce than Robinson implies). It is not, however, sufficient to make the case. Even if one embraces the value of retribution, it doesn't logically follow that it should be apportioned differently just because an assailant was motivated by hatred for a protected class rather than for a specific individual.
The old conservative aphorism is that all crimes are hate crimes (perhaps more specifically all willful, violent crimes). That's my view. Anyone in the Ricochet family willing to stand with Mr. Robinson?
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
What happens in the case of mistaken bias? For example, let's say some white person, Person A, hates Native-Americans to the point of violence. Given that, what if I'm a black-haired high-cheek-boned white Norwegian-American who's been out in the Sun all Summer, and happen to look just like a Native American, and, Person A beats the hell out of me, while spouting anti-Indian slurs?
In all likelihood, if he didn't think I was Native-American he would've just left me alone.
So, I report the hate crime aspect of the assault, and the police, or prosecutors, ask me, "are you Native American?"
"No, but he thought I was."
"But you're just saying that now, so that he'll get a longer sentence."
--------------
How do you, the victim, win that argument? Better to just prosecute the violence, that there's tangible evidence of, and leave the motive--often unprovable--out of it.
Edited on Apr 26, 2011 at 9:10pmJan '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
I'll stand behind Mr. Robinson - and give him a push back to the Liberals.
May '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Let's call "hate" crimes for what they are - thought crimes. Judges and juries are not only told to believe that they can read minds but that they can do so retroactively.
It also violates all concepts of equality before the law. If all life is valuable, how does a black death, or gay death obtain superiority over that of a white straight male?
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
I suspect that many who would be hesitant to call it a hate crime if the victim was a white woman would be more comfy calling it a hate crime when the victim is transgendered. Not because there's a sliding scale of human worth, heaven forfend, but because there's a hay to be made.
I don't know why we have to complicate these things. Two people brutalized another person. The rest is frosting.
Apr '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Troy Senik: Over at the Daily Caller, conservative novelist Rick Robinson responds to the recent violent assault on a transgender woman at a Maryland McDonald's by saying the right should rethink its opposition to hate crimes legislation. His case:
Retribution is a nice word, but I like to call it justice.
Jun '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
I'm not sure that this is the best case to use for the argument, Mr. Senik. Regardless of what stage of transition that transgendered person was in, the base material is still that of a grown man, and that grown man was fighting a 14 year old girl and her 18 year old friend, also a girl. Violent action is, of course, deplorable in civil society, and the reactions of those watching was simply horrible, but this case just doesn't cry out to me for a policing of thought.
Nov '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
The 1989 murder of Matthew Shepard by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson is widely believed to have been a “hate crime” because the killers were straight and Shepard was gay. They weren’t charged with a hate crime because Wyoming has no statute on it. Numerous failed attempts were made to pass the Federal Matthew Shepard Act before it was finally enacted in 2009. Anyone wanting to look into the matter will quickly discover that the Matthew Shepard murder was motivated by robbery and was not anything that can be called a “hate crime.” The murderers probably didn’t even know he was gay. If a hate crime statute had been on the books at the time they would have been prosecuted under it but the prosecution would have been a miscarriage of justice. The killers are never going to get out of prison anyway, so what would have been the point of making a mockery of justice?
That’s exactly what hate crime statutes do. They send justice sliding off the rails with dishonest prosecutions. Simple justice becomes preferential justice. No Black person will ever be prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person, though many should.
Jul '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Thought crime? Oh, yeah, just go a little ways down Hate Crime Boulevard and turn left.
May '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
I have this feeling the reason liberals, deep down, support hate crime legislation is actually retribution against the oppressive majority (and history) on behalf of the oppressed minority (and progress). They just dress it up in all that high-minded language.
May '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
All hate crime laws should be abolished. A crime is a hateful act. That's why we call it a crime. Criminals should be punished based on the heinousness of their act, plain and simple, not based on who the victim was.
Jan '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
No, I don't buy it.
The logical premise of hate crime legislation is that hate inspires crime, so that if government is charged with preventing crime, it should also be empowered to prevent the cause of the crime. But of course, once you take that step, you've rationalized your way into absolute power, because there's no end to the causal connections you could possibly draw. And, conservatism resists making those imagined causal connections, and certainly resists any temptation to expanding government power.
Feb '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Hate crimes legislation is yet another method by which the left binds people to them.
As Orwell wrote all people are equal but some people are more equal than others.
If you a member of a leftist favored group they have arranged it so that by law you are more equal than the typical random member of society not especially inclined to vote left.
Hate crimes law are simply an exercise of power by the left over non-leftists, and conservatives should never forget that.
Hence there is no justification for hate crimes laws, period.
Jul '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
I can see a case for hate-crimes being worse than regular crimes because they are often unprovoked and random. Such crimes are always judged as being more heinous. Consider the difference between a gang member shot by another gang member he is feuding with, versus a little old lady shot dead in a robbery. One makes you think, "That's bad, but being in a gang is dangerous." The other makes you think, "My God, that could have been my grandmother." The criminal charge may be the same, but the crime will not be viewed the same way.
There is a basis for thinking that violence animated by bias is worse than other types because there is no way to forestall it. That said, I think it would be better used as an aggravating factor in sentencing, rather than a separate class of crime.
Plus, hate crimes is one of the few ways to get a liberal to agree to send violent criminals to jail!
Apr '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
LOL. Too funny. I agree with everyone here it seems. Crime should be punished according to actions not thoughts or motivation.
Apr '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Here's a question for anyone who thinks we should have "hate crimes" legislation: if a Black gang member kills a Hispanic gang member (or vice versa), all the while spouting racial slurs, is it a "hate crime"?
Dec '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Equal protection under the law. That is what ever single minority group in this country has been fighting for since it was founded. As long as any one group is more equal under the eyes of the law than another group you are begging for trouble. I would even say that special protection for minorities is more disastrous than a lack of legal equality for minorities. When special protections are carved out for minorites you not only have the basic problems that legal inequity creates, you also get:
1) The creation of a political class who's sole role is decideding who the "protected" minorities are.
2) Incentives for groups to put money and influence into politics to gain or preserve "protected" status.
Not to mention that hate crime legislation provides the government a legal way to use force against people who thoughts and ideas it doesn't like. I don't believe that any type of "thought" legislation is compatible with conservatism.
Jan '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
"Hate crime" laws => "Hate speech" laws => suppression of free speech, which is why I don't like them.
But (arguing against myself) don't our laws already take into account the perpetrator's supposed thoughts in some circumstances? In murder trials, doesn't it make a difference if you can show that the murder was premeditated? (Or am I just reading too many mystery novels?)
Dec '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
It's not what the guy did. What's really important is what he was thinking when he did it.
Is that ever productive? In the case of a social issue like racism where an organized opposition exists or is thought to exist, doesn't punishing for motive give a martyr to the cause?
I think Rick Robinson is onto something. He's picked out the most reasonable motive for those who support hate crime legislation. Claiming support for these laws is pure satire.
Edited on Apr 27, 2011 at 7:55amMay '10
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Here's a compromise:
We agree to enact hate crime legislation. In return, they agree to crank up the punishments equally for greed crimes, malice crimes, rage crimes, revenge crimes, honor crimes, dishonesty crimes, and any other invidious "root causes" other Ricochet members can think of.
Apr '11
Re: Is There a Conservative Case for Hate Crimes Legislation?
Didn't hate crime legislation come to us from the same people who invented temporary insanity as a defense? In other words, all that matters is what was going through the criminal's mind at the moment; the crime itself is secondary at best. So the lesson to be learned here is never attack a minority and when you attack someone, make sure you look and act as crazy as possible. Am I missing anything else? Moral relativity sure is a wonderful basis for making laws, isn't it?