« Winter reruns, cont... | Main | "Something wicked this way comes..." »
Context vs. Content: Crime
After discussing context and content in movies, here comes another, more politically charged, issue that involves much of the same principles: hate-crime laws.
The SL Tribune article profiles Joshua Nowitz, an 18-year-old activist who insists that Utah needs a hate-crimes law. The article focuses more on Joshua's personality and lifestyle than it does on the actual hate-crime issue, which is too bad because Joshua himself would probably have preferred it be the other way around.
Joshua's roommate is quoted as saying: "The first thing I asked [Joshua] was, 'Why are you here?' He told me he wanted to pass hate-crimes legislation in Utah.
I wanted to know why a person's motivation to commit a crime was
essential."
That's a very good question, in fact...one which the article does not answer. (The article mentions that Joshua has "intelligent, articulate" answers that are "not based on emotion"--but it fails to share them with us...)
So, why does a person's motivation to commit a crime matter? Just like discussing whether an explicit sex scene in a movie is for the purpose of continuing an overall story or just because the director just felt like putting an explicit sex scene there--the results are the same: you have an explicit sex scene in a movie. At what point does the context no longer matter?
One of the main problems with hate-crime legislation is that they cover things that are already crimes. (If it were legal to kill blacks...or Mormons, for example, that would be a totally separate issue, but the hate-crime issue today concerns only punishment, not legality...) Making 'hate' crimes have a more severe punishment implies (as the article does) that those hate crimes are a more serious threat to society than their 'normal' equivalents.
I don't really buy this... You have 'Joe' who kills a black man because he hates blacks...and you have 'Jim' who kills a black man because he wants to steal his shoes, and you're telling me Joe is the bigger threat to society? And that he deserves a larger punishment than someone who kills casually and indiscriminately for a pair of shoes? Which one would you be the most worried about?
Why should a serial killer who kills five 'racially diverse' people receive a lesser sentence than one who kills five Mexicans? (Do you reduce the sentence of the second guy if he can prove that he's murdered at least one white guy in the past? "I'm not racist...I hate everyone!") By throwing race and motive into the picture, you introduce many exterior --and subjective--factors into the equation. The police, after catching the guy, have to spend time and energy researching the killer's personal beliefs, instead of the actual facts behind the case.
Take 'Larry' who has a disagreement with 'Jerry' one day and beats him up. Later, the police discover 'Jerry' is gay. Now, of course, they have to spend time figuring out the hate crime angle: did Larry know Jerry was gay? How does Larry feel about gays? What political parties or groups does he belong to? What religion is he? What does his church say about homosexuality? As it turns out, maybe Larry lost his temper because Jerry cut him off on the road that day. But with hate crime laws on the books, both sides are going to focus on Larry's personal beliefs in court ("Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?", "Do you support gay marriage?") and what he knew about Jerry...when isn't that all beside the point? Why not just focus on the content here: (1) what did Larry do, and (2) is that a crime? If so, then (3) here's the punishment for that crime, applied without regard to what race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation either the perpatrator or the victim is.
Hate crime legislation runs the risk of creating social inequality in regards to victims: crimes against people belonging to certain racial, religious, or social minorities are treated as if they are more serious than the same crime against someone who's not. We see this even today with many people (Jewish and non-) who even in the face of raw numbers insist that the Holocaust was the 'greatest tragedy in human history' because Hitler was deliberately targeting a particular ethnic group (a 'hate' crime) while Mao, Stalin, and others (while killing more) did so indiscriminately (again...killing indiscriminately is better?) Why does the motive matter? The life of one white European Jew should be exactly equal to the life of one Chinese, or Cambodian, or Russian--no more or no less...
So, my questions to Joshua Nowitz and anyone who supports hate-crime legislation are as follows:
- Why does motive matter?
- Why are 'hate' crimes worse than 'greed' crimes, or 'unmotivated' crimes?
- How does it benefit a) the criminal justice system, b) society in general, to increase punishment for equal crimes according to the personal beliefs of the accused?
- What safeguards are there to prevent every crime involving people of different races, creeds, or lifestyles from being classified as a 'hate' crime? (Note that in the article out of the 43 reported 'hate' crimes in SLC the past two years, only 24 could be shown after review to have been motivated by hate.) Is 55% an acceptable ratio? Is it worth the extra time the police obviously had to spent investigating the 'hate' aspect of all 43 of those?
December 6, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1500731
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Context vs. Content: Crime:
Comments
Despite the fact that I consistently vote Democrat, I've been treated like a racist, sexist mouthbreather for not recognizing the self-evident value of hate crime legislation. (It gets even worse when you ask a dedicated proponent to explain it to you.)
The only haveway comprehensible explanation I've got is that it "sends a message" about intolerance.
Please.
Is there anyone out there whose hate will be tempered by a law on the books "sending a message"? Is there anyone out there who is all ready to kill or maim that [insert protected class here] up the street, but will be paused by the fact that the jail time for doing so out of prejudice will be longer than doing it for other motives?
The only message such legislation sends is to those who enact it, the message being, "We're so tolerant and progressive and such, unlike those blankety-blank conservatives."
Posted by: Nathan | Dec 7, 2004 12:00:52 PM
Good points...I think legislators get sucked in to approving hate crime laws just to show that they're 'doing something' about intolerance (it's good for show, in other words, without regard for fairness of effectiveness...)
The most disturbing point is the last one in my list--any white-on-black crime (or straight-on-gay crime) WILL be charged as a hate crime, no matter what the actual reason was. The defendant is almost forced to prove he/she is NOT prejudiced to avoid the higher sentence, which is the opposite of what the criminal justice system is supposed to do...
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 8, 2004 7:31:28 AM
Oh, and congratulations Nathan for being "The Baron of Deseret"'s 500th comment! (Woo hoo!)
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 8, 2004 7:33:07 AM
A true hate crime targets a community in addition to being carried out against an individual. It is meant to terrorize, to make members of the community feel fear. Utah has a hate crime law protecting livestock from eco-terrorists, which makes certain forms of eco-terrorism a crime because they are intended to send a message to others.
I certainly think it is logical that a crime meant to terrorize a community is worse than a crime committed against an individual.
Posted by: a random John | Dec 15, 2004 1:54:13 PM
Well, that's a start, at least...
However, this 'terrorizes a community' idea needs more explanation... What kind of crimes do NOT terrorize a community?
Wouldn't a serial killer who wanders a neighborhood casually killing anyone of any age, gender, nationality, or skin color he comes across to steal their money (or just because he likes it) cause great fear in the community? Everyone would be afraid of being his next target...
Why is this LESS serious than a guy who has devoted himself to eliminating all blacks or Jews in his neighborhood through violent means? The existence of the second guy would increase the level of fear among the black or Jewish community certainly (while obviously reducing it in everyone else) since you'd still be afraid of being the next target...and the pool of potential targets is now a lot smaller. But why does limiting the scope of community fear to a particular demographic make the crime MORE serious? Why does motive matter?
I'll bet the entire community was afraid when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped--yet, that had nothing to do with 'hate'... Again, why does the source of the fear matter? Whether it's based on racial or ethnic hatred, or greed, or out of casual disregard for human life, or just out of boredom--crime is crime...
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 15, 2004 2:32:41 PM
I think it is possible to distinguish between random senseless violence and a crime that makes an intentional statement. If you are carrying out violent acts to make a statement that strikes me as something that should be discouraged. Is there a difference of degree between murder and a terrorist committing a murder for a political motive?
Posted by: a random John | Dec 16, 2004 9:00:32 AM
an question that might make this discussion more meaningful:
Was the martydom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith a hate crime?
Posted by: a random John | Dec 17, 2004 12:54:05 PM
"Was the martydom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith a hate crime?"
That is an interesting question--because according to the current definition of hate crime, SOME of the people in the mob who killed Joseph and Hyrum would count, and some would not...which is a good example of how arbitrary the definition of a hate crime is...
Those who hated Joseph Smith PERSONALLY without caring about the Mormon angle (there might be Mormons they happened to get along with...many of the people in the mob were ex-Church members) would be judged differently than those who were participating because they hated MORMONS (and might not have any personal grudge against Joseph, or in fact even met him...) The second group is said to be committing a hate crime while the first group is not...
And, again, I ask--what's the point of the distinction? Why shouldn't all participants of the exact same crime be judged for the exact same crime?
Another example of this same principle: "Joe" finds out his wife is having an affair with "Mike". Mike happens to be black. Joe doesn't hate blacks in general but happens to hate THIS black (Mike) in particular thanks to what happened with his wife. Joe calls two of his friends who DO hate blacks and asks them to accompany him to 'teach Mike a lesson'. The three of them ambush Mike one day and beat him up.
Now according to hate crime laws, ONLY Joe's two friends are guilty of a hate crime because they beat up a black man because they hate blacks. Joe, himself, hates Mike too--but that doesn't count, because it wasn't because of his race. So we have Joe receiving a LESSER SENTENCE than the other two, even though (a) the raw hate and disregard for Mike's personal rights is the same and (b) he was the instigator of the whole thing in the first place.
So that's the problem--only CERTAIN kinds of hate are covered in 'hate' crimes, which raises the same question: why divide "hate" into 'more acceptable' and 'less acceptable' varieties? What's the difference?
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 19, 2004 1:29:24 PM
Perhaps the name "hate crimes" is a poor choice because it confuses the issue. The issue isn't if the person committing the crime hates a group of people. The issue is if that crime is intended to terrorize a group of people (not the direct victim) as its primary motive, in order to drive them out or change their behvavior. Utah has such a law for acts against livestock, but not humans. Somehow the legislature has its priorities backwards, don't you think? At least tell me that you are consistent and think the livestock law should be repealed.
Posted by: a random John | Dec 22, 2004 11:10:30 AM
Gladly. I'm not familiar with the livestock law you mentioned, but if it draws arbitrary distinctions based on people's motive then my feelings on it are exactly the same...
And I second renaming 'hate crimes' into something more accurate--'ethnic terrorism' perhaps?
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 22, 2004 4:46:52 PM
I am not sure that the "ethnic" applies. I would also like a better word than terrorism, but perhaps that is it.
The livestock law came into being after the militant vegans began burning down mink farms and poisoning horses and cattle. Not that this is rampant in Utah, but it does happen. A kid from my high school burned down a mink facility and a guard died in the fire. It attaches special penalties for politically motivated acts against agricultural targets.
Posted by: a random John | Dec 23, 2004 11:42:54 AM
I think it is possible to distinguish between random senseless violence and a crime that makes an intentional statement. If you are carrying out violent acts to make a statement that strikes me as something that should be discouraged. Is there a difference of degree between murder and a terrorist committing a murder for a political motive?
--------------
http://www.bromastelefono.com/
Posted by: penis | Mar 1, 2005 1:47:20 PM
