Tuesday, November 10, 1998
Punish hate crimes with more time
CRIMES: Perpetrators of actions motivated by racial, sexual bias
should face harsher penalties
By Adrian Haymond
I read with interest the article "Punishment fits crime, not
cause" by Matthew Gever (Viewpoint, Nov. 5), because I pretty much
knew he would stir up controversy with his remarks. Cheers! He
didn’t disappoint.
He starts out by stating that hate-crime legislation poses "a
great number of legal and ethical questions which prove it not
viable," after which he lists a number of questions that can be at
best considered spurious. Let’s take each of the questions posed by
Gever and study them on their merits.
He first questions the idea that hate crimes are somehow worse
than other crimes. He then states "a murder is a murder." Wrong. By
using this same reasoning, we would say that taking a five cent
piece of candy rates the same punishment as stealing 50 million
dollars from a bank.
This, of course, cannot be further from the truth. There are
degrees of crime and even federal law dictates it.
Someone who kills while robbing a bank, holding a hostage or
fleeing from law enforcement can expect to be charged with first
degree murder, which brings either life without parole or the death
penalty. In another case, someone could kill in the heat of
passion, but only be charged with second degree murder (or even
homicide).
We always question the motives of the perpetrator so we can
determine the degree of punishment received. There’s no "one size
fits all" here. Gever then brings up the opinion, and it is only an
opinion, that giving a greater sentence to perpetrators of hate
crimes "is an insult to all other peoples who have been victims of
violent crimes."
How is that, Gever?
In many instances, the sufferings of victims can be much greater
in the commission of hate crimes. Although everyone eventually
dies, the route to death can be more despicable for some than
others. Beating someone to death, dragging them behind a car for a
mile or burning people alive brings a very poignant point; these
people suffered quite a bit before they died, and I’m sure Matthew
Shepard’s killers wanted him to feel pain and humiliation before he
expired. That is part of the "hate" in hate crime.
As an addendum to the opinion above, one tends to act out what
one thinks. A "passion" killer who stabs someone 25 times was
obviously just a little ticked off at the hapless victim. A hate
crime perpetrator thinks of his or her victim as below them.
Therefore, killing, maiming or otherwise hurting those victims
improves the gene pool, saves America from the conquering invaders,
and puts them in their place (back to their place of origin or six
feet under).
Thoughts, Gever, are a part of the entire process in determining
the extent of guilt. When Gever next reasons that many crimes serve
to intimidate a greater population, he follows with arguments that
are totally unrelated and tries to prove his point with them.
Crimes against children do scare parents (of which I am one),
but this is not usually the intent of the pedophile. He’s only
concerned with satisfying his sexual urges, not terrorizing
parents. Crimes against students on campus do scare students, but
usually the intent is to gun down a particular rival or target, not
to change the entire student body into masses of compliant
jelly.
I’m sorry, Gever, but your reasoning just does not make sense!
Let’s dispense with theories. A robber’s motive is money. If that
person tends also to hate the person’s race, color, creed or sexual
persuasion, it’s secondary; the person is after the color green.
His hate may increase the ferocity of the attack, but the initial
motive is purely financial.
If there is a pattern in robberies and resultant other crimes
that reveal a racial hatred, then that’s something to go on. But
we’re quibbling with points here, Gever.
Shepard’s death qualifies as a "hate crime" no matter what type
of spin you may use. The relatively small number of hate crimes in
comparison to the other "millions of crimes" (as you state, while
not mentioning that most crimes are misdemeanors) does not preclude
having a separate category for hate crimes. Crimes against police
officers have always been classified as separate, but they make up
a very small percentage of all crimes in the country. Folks just
can’t go around shooting, robbing or mugging peace officers.
This seems fair in order to send the message that crimes against
law enforcement officers are very serious and constitute
lawlessness and a lack of respect to authority. Again, Gever uses
the wrong argument in this application. As far as deterrents go, I
agree that special clauses for hate crimes will not be effective
deterrents for those determined to do harm physically, mentally or
financially to their intended victims. I could care less about
deterrents.
What I do care about is getting hate crime offenders out of the
way – let’s say for about 25 to 50 years at least – so I and others
will not feel threatened. (Of course, with some extenuating
circumstances, you can’t be too rigid, you know).
The term "double jeopardy" shouldn’t even be mentioned in this
article. The only time I’ve heard of anything even close to the
situation Gever describes is the trial of the police officers
accused of beating Rodney King. They were tried by state courts
which disregarded evidence to acquit them, then by federal courts
who used all evidence available to bring the men to justice.
In this country, the double jeopardy defense is a last resort
for criminals and racists trying to beat the rap in a certain
community or state. Such miscreants hope that their state is
willing to coddle them and hold their actions as somewhat heroic
instead of despicable.
The persons involved in hate crimes invade and disregard their
victims’ civil rights. This is not the same as accusing someone of
murder and would not be considered double jeopardy, even under the
Constitution. That’s why the police officers were tried – and
rightfully so. (As a side note, reports of police beatings in Los
Angeles have gone down substantially since then.)
Finally, Gever shows his true libertarian politics. He actually
cares only that government is becoming too much like "Big Brother,"
(a legitimate concern) and will do everything to eliminate the
danger, even if it means denying hate crime victims justice.
Of course hate speech can be construed as a threat.
Someone that tells me, "If I had an AK-47, I would do away with
as many lazy, shiftless, criminal-minded Latinos and blacks as
possible" is someone to beware of. Verbal criticism of myself is
one thing, but verbal criticism of an entire group is another and
is inherently stereotypical and racist. Verbal criticism that
speaks of destroying groups because of stereotypes and racial
differences is, and should be unlawful.
Crying "fire" in a theater is unlawful. Planning to overthrow
the government and bragging about it will get you a visit from the
FBI or CIA (as it should). Free speech is a right, but the right
ends when it begins to threaten my existence – just as your right
to swing your fist ends at my nose.
To summarize, Gever makes many assumptions based on his opinions
and political persuasion, but unfortunately he cannot bring them
together in anything that makes logical sense. The reasoning is
flawed, credibility strained and statements oversimplified. This is
only a symptom of our country which puts emotionalism and sound
bites ahead of reasoned thinking and logical debate.
To me, legislation against hate crimes is not frightening;
rather, the opposite would be true. For in the land of Gever’s
dreams, I would have to look over my shoulder constantly, because,
"Hey, I was only trying to rob him – his color just got in the way.
I’ll be back out in five to 10 years with parole, but my victim is
still dead. And since you can’t judge my thoughts – off the record,
I enjoyed kicking every tooth in and seeing him drown in his own
jigaboo blood." If Gever can oversimplify and overreact, why can’t
I?
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]