That is the question at hand: are hate crimes laws a justified necessity, or simply an attempt (intentional or accidental) to elevate the value of certain people groups by offering greater protection under the law by punishing more harshly anyone who would commit crimes against them allegedly due to their protected status. Crimes deemed to qualify as hate crimes under state statutes receive greater penalties than the same crimes which do not qualify as hate crimes. For example, a man randomly assaulted by another would not be punished as harshly as a man assaulted due to his race. This is the issue which creates the debate as to whether certain citizens are considered more valuable than others. It would not seem that the intent of the government would be to consider some individuals of more value, but in practice that appears to be the end result.
Most criminal laws are enacted for two reasons, prevention and protection. The laws are in place to protect the people from acts of violence, fraud, harassment, etc. They explain and define the behaviors society has rejected as inappropriate and unacceptable. The penalties are set (in theory) both to punish appropriately and in proportion to the offense, and to deter potential offenders from committing the crimes in the first place.
On what basis do we as a society determine if there is a need for this special protection? Are there an exorbitant amount of these hate crimes being committed which require special attention? Understand that I agree that any violent crimes or hate crimes are unacceptable, the point being, is hate crime an epidemic? The table below is a summary of violent crimes and hate crimes by year in relation to each other and over all population:
| Year | Violent Crimes | Hate Crime Incidents | % | Victims | Population* |
| 2008 | 1,382,012 | 7783 | 0.6 | 9691 | 304 |
| 2007 | 1,408,337 | 7624 | 0.5 | 9535 | 301.6 |
| 2006 | 1,418,043 | 7722 | 0.5 | 9652 | 299.4 |
| 2005 | 1,390,745 | 7163 | 0.5 | 8804 | 296.5 |
| 2004 | 1,360,088 | 7649 | 0.6 | 9528 | 293.7 |
| 2003 | 1,383,676 | 7489 | 0.5 | 9100 | 290.8 |
| 2002 | 1,423,677 | 7462 | 0.5 | 9222 | 289 |
Every violent crime is a tragedy, especially hate crimes. However, the number of overall violent crimes which are hate crimes is incredibly minute. Up to six tenths of one percent (.6 of 1%) is hardly an epidemic. If you read the news these figures are likely a shock, they were to me. We are led to believe that hate crime is out of control, but according to the data collected by the FBI, the number of hate crimes is barely visible. It can't be the number of hate crimes driving the social desire for the legislation.
So what could be the driving force behind the laws? People are already protected by laws against violence. All states prohibit acts of harassment, threat, and violence. If the penalties for these crimes are inadequate, they should be revised accordingly. So protection is not the goal. What about prevention? According to the stats, though the numbers of hate crimes remains relatively unchanged, when you take into consideration the rise in population, approximately 15 million people since 2002, the percentages of crimes to total population decrease. Despite what the media portrays, hate crimes are not on the rise. It would seem they are as prevented as they can be. As we all know, if someone desperately wants to commit a crime, the law will be no deterrent.
In my opinion, the push for hate crime laws, and stronger hate crime laws are a result of politics and politicians pandering to advocacy groups. Hate crime laws do not seem to be driven by the same motivation as other laws. For one thing, the victim of the crime is already protected by the existing laws. What is added is making the same act of violence or intimidation against an individual a crime against a group of similar people due to your motivation in committing the crime against the individual. According to our Constitution, individuals have rights, not groups. Each person is dealt with on an individual basis, and should be. Criminalizing actions against an individual is one thing, but then applying additional punishment due the individual's real or perceived democraphical status informs society the government believes Person A is worthy of greater protection than Person B. I do not believe a crime against an individual also transfers to a group of people who were not involved.
People who commit violent crimes belong in jail, but to additionally criminalize their thoughts in addition to their actions is a step too far. The guy who beats and robs me will go to jail, and rightly so. I do not see what it matters if he did it because of the color of my skin, or a certain belief I hold, I'm beat up either way. Hate crime laws are akin to legislating "You can't think that!", an idea I consider wholly unamerican.
1) www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment