Rise Of The Thought Police
Wendy Kaminer has a brilliantly reasoned - and beautifully written - op-ed over at the Opinion Journal today about why so-called hate crime legislation is a terrible idea. This is one of the best criticisms of the subject I have ever seen.
The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is no exception to this rule. By invoking memories of University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard's brutal 1998 slaying, it makes a sentimental bid for expanded federal hate-crime legislation covering violent crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation or "gender identity," as well as race, sex, religion, ethnicity or disability.
Its prospects are dimmed by the threat of a presidential veto, but last month the Matthew Shepard Act was attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill by a 60-vote majority in the Senate; a companion bill passed the House (with the support of 212 Democrats and 25 Republicans.) Naturally, the bill enjoys the enthusiastic support of civil-rights groups, including the historically civil libertarian American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU has withheld support from hate-crime legislation in the past but wholeheartedly embraces this bill, which applies only to acts of violence and has been carefully drafted to avoid criminalizing pure speech: It provides that evidence of a defendant's hateful speech or associations are only admissible at trial if they "specifically relate" to the offense charged. In other words, speech could be offered as evidence that a violent act was motivated by bias, but it would not be a crime in itself.
Still, distinguishing hateful bias crimes from other hateful acts of violence punishes ideas and expression, no matter how scrupulously the legislation is crafted. When someone convicted of assaulting one woman is subject to an enhanced prison sentence or a more vigorous prosecution because his assault was motivated by a hateful belief in the inherent inferiority of all women, then he is being punished for his thoughts as well as his conduct.
Kaminer is right here. No matter how you look at this, hate crime laws punish the thoughts of the perpetrator of a crime. That is anathema to the constitution of this country. Voltaire, in his A Treatise on Toleration said:
Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation.
The murderers of Matthew Shepard are serving consecutive life sentences for their heinous crime. Punishing their thoughts would do no more to them. We do not need thought crimes ensconced in Federal law. Read Kaminer's piece.
Civilization, Crime, Legal | Gaius Sunday, 28 October , 2007
By Blair, Sunday, 28 October , 2007 @ 10:17 am
Although it would not apply to the Matthew Shepard case, most white Americans would probably welcome a draconian hate crime law that would automatically make any incident of interracial violence a hate crime, including those committed in commission of another crime. For example, a person who held up a convenience store and shot the cashier would get additional time tacked on to his sentence if the cashier was of a difference race. A mugger who assaulted a person of a different race on the street would get additional time, even if the mugger also stole the person’s wallet. Any person convicted of raping person of another race would automatically get more time added to his sentence. The law would also apply to interracial gang beatings, even if the victim happens to be white.
By Lars Walker, Sunday, 28 October , 2007 @ 11:22 am
Race-based sentencing. Very progressive. (Sigh)
By Jamelle, Sunday, 28 October , 2007 @ 11:57 am
I think there’s a huge misunderstanding here. Hate crime laws don’t punish the “thoughts” of a perpetrator any more than “traditional” laws. The mindset of a suspect is always in play (in menas reas), it’s the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter for example.
What hate crime laws do is take into account a very real and very serious effect of bias crimes; namely, that they are an attack on an individual and a community.
Cross burnings aren’t illegal because it’s an act of trespassing/property destruction, they are illegal because they are a threat of violence towards an entire community.
Violence against gays for the fact of them being gay serves to send an anti-gay message to the entire community and works to prevent gays from fully interacting with that community.
It’s cool to disagree with hate crime laws, but it’s lame to accuse proponents of trying to criminalize thought; that isn’t the intention at all.
By Gaius, Sunday, 28 October , 2007 @ 12:01 pm
It may not be the intent, but it is exactly what is happening. Read Kaminer’s piece.