Hate crime, or hateful crime? Why should there be a difference?
The case that JR addresses here, and which Leonard Pitts also writes about, points to why "hate crime" laws are misguided.
The Christian-Newsom murders, which occurred in Knoxville in January, were horrific. A young couple were carjacked, kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered. One victim's body was burned, the other's dismembered.
The victims were white; the accused are black.
Lately a debate has been triggered by Michelle Malkin and other conservative commentators. Why did these sensational murders receive almost no national news coverage until recently? Why aren't there allegations that it was a hate crime?
Law-enforcement officials say there is no evidence that the crimes were racially motivated.
Presumably, if one of the killers has used a racial slur while torturing the victims, he would have been committing a hate crime. Otherwise, no.
Not that the victims are available to testify.
Get the absurdity?
It wouldn't matter if these crimes were racially motivated. That wouldn't make them more vile, more sadistic, more hateful. That wouldn't make them deserving of additional charges. If the accused are convicted of rape, kidnapping and murder, they'll be sentenced to severe punishment even without an extra penalty for committing a "hate crime." Just as the killers in the infamous James Byrd case in Texas did. That crime absolutely was racially motivated. Two of the killers were sentenced to death, the third to life in prison. Without a hate crime statute, was that too lenient?
Hate crime laws add a level of complexity to the judicial process because they require a jury to look into the heart, mind and soul of the accused. It's relatively easy to determine whether someone murdered someone else. It's much harder to say with certainty why.
More troubling, these laws assign different values to victims according to the circumstances of the crime. If Christian and Newsom had been picked out because they were white, should their deaths as a matter of principle require a higher price than they would otherwise? It wouldn't matter in practical terms if the killers are convicted and receive the maximum punishment. But the law should operate on the principle that everyone's life has equal value.
Aside from issues of premeditation and intent, criminals should be judged according to what they did, not according to what they were thinking when they did it. Is it really so much worse if a man rapes, tortures and murders a woman because of her race than if he does exactly the same thing because he's a sadistic brute who thinks he can get away with it? Calling one heinous murder a hate crime but not another makes no sense to me. It's better to treat crime as crime, victims as victims and killers as killers.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The liberal press had no problem with the Duke case.Now that it is a proven lie. The press has no problem, dropping it like a hot potato.Which was worst. According to the press, the Duke case was.
Posted on June 4, 2007 6:39 AM
Generally, I agree with your philosophical take, Doug. One would expect a crime to be a crime with no distinction among victims or perpetrators.
But I can't completely convince myself and here's why. We already make distinctions for the same violent acts based on motive. If a wife finds her husband in bed with another woman and, in a fit of rage, pulls out a gun and shoots him dead that's a different crime than the if the wife plots and plans to shoot her husband in his sleep to try to collect insurance money. The former is second degree murder, the later first degree murder. A distinction is made because of motive and state of mind.
Is there a hate crime equivalent? Cross burning comes to mind. Without hate crime laws, burning a cross might get someone a ticket for outdoor burning. Recognizing that the motive of the act is to intimidate and terrorize, the law elevates the act to a more serious crime. And that's appropriate, no?
Posted on June 4, 2007 8:08 AM
Roch, I agree it's appropriate to criminalize acts of racial intimidation.
I understand your distinctions based on premeditation and state of mind. That's why the law creates different categories of homicide, first-degree murder vs. involuntary manslaughter, for example. But when you establish that a charge of first-degree murder is appropriate, such as in both the Christian-Newsom and Byrd cases, I don't think further distinctions based on supposed racist attitudes are helpful or necessary.
Posted on June 4, 2007 8:28 AM
Precisely, Doug, so you'd agree that the opinoins of Malkin et al are not helpful or necessary.
Posted on June 4, 2007 8:51 AM
If they're clamoring for the Christian-Newsom murders to be classified and prosecuted as "hate crimes," I think they're way off base. It appears that the individuals charged are going to be fully and vigorously prosecuted without the help of Michelle Malkin or anyone else in the media.
Pundits certainly are entitled to say this case should receive more media attention, but I'm not convinced it was under-reported because of the racial issue.
Posted on June 4, 2007 8:59 AM
I think the "outcry" here--and my take on hate crimes is 2/3 Doug, 1/3 Roch (motive is sometimes relevant)--isn't so much on the law as in the rules of media coverage. The media can only cover about one crime at a time, and barring OJ-style celebrity, it tends to choose a crime that allows its pundits--er, reporters--to wax philosophical on what the crime, in the broadest sense, tells us about ourselves. Duke LAX allowed ruminations on classism, racism, and sexism: the trifecta of liberal media desire. I suspect editors across the country constantly scan the police band to find crimes that fit their favorite hobbyhorse of oppression. Also to find examples of attractive white females (of whatever age) who have been abducted--that seems to be another favorite.
Posted on June 4, 2007 6:27 PM
Lately a debate has been triggered by Michelle Malkin and other conservative commentators. *Doug
Michelle is a classic example how mail order Asia brides can be damage in shipment to a political media network. And stop calling her a conservative. She is the classic corporate fascist mouth piece with a very limited knowledge on constitutional rights and like most Republican neo-con Vampires, waving the Bill of Rights in front of her will send her back into the coffin.
Posted on June 4, 2007 11:51 PM
brian, there's also an element of public response that drives news coverage decisions. The Duke case created a huge uproar in Durham, which not only fueled the media but also the prosecutor.
Posted on June 5, 2007 6:14 AM
Huge uproar in Durham? The police and chief,Nifong all lied? The press sweep this under rug in a heart beat.It did not fit their views. Putting innocent people in jail, for the sake of a election did.
Posted on June 5, 2007 3:30 PM
Michelle is a classic example how mail order Asia brides can be damage in shipment to a political media network.
***********
I really shouldn't respond to anything Connie says, but his comments about Michelle Malkin are in poor taste. I happen to be a Michelle Malkin fan - I think she offers a lot of insight. Even if I didn't, I don't think her ethnicity is an issue here.
Posted on June 5, 2007 4:47 PM
Connie Mack is just a typical liberal hypocrite racist just like most journalists seem to be at the N&R. The lack of reporting on crimes by blacks on whites and over-reporting white on black crimes is reverse racism at it's best. Maybe if N&R reported news and not resort to race-baiting they wouldn't have had to lay off 41 employees this week.
Posted on June 10, 2007 1:03 PM