thoughts on hate crime
My friend deliciouspear was talking about hate-crime legislation in her journal, and someone she knows made the following post. This is written by sarahcascade, who I do not know. Up until I read this, I was pretty firmly on the side of prosecuting for the crimes that are already on the books. Most of the people who participated in the discussion were as well, and they
( Read more... )
I think this is a highly over-simplified definition of what constitutes a "hate crime". I think the *primary* definition is an act that is motivated by hostility, and perpetrated towards an individual (or group of people) based on their membership in a particular group (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.). I don't think that people who commit hate crimes think on as big a scale as "we're gonna show all those [insert target here]!" Take, for example, the recent series of attacks in Capital Hill where people have been attacked at least in part because they're gay. I seriously doubt the people who committed these crimes did it with any kind of forethought as to the impact their actions would have on the gay community in Capital Hill.
I don't think specific groups should even come into it. I think the important thing is the method.
Why not, since it's usually specific groups that are being targeted? And why is the method the important thing? What difference does it make if someone says "Hey, are you a faggot?" And then punches the victim in the face, or slices them open with a vodka bottle? The method of enacting the violence is irrelevant. The fact that an act of violence was committed against someone because of what group they belong to is what makes it a hate crime. The OPs logic makes no sense, and the accompanying example of beating someone up because they're from a certain place in order to intimidate everyone from that place is again way over simplifying. And while I would agree that terrorism is a form of hate crime, I would argue that, at least in this country, the majority of hate crimes are committed by individuals or small groups of people who are not in any way organized on a scale that approaches being considered a terrorist group (unlike the KKK, or the Aryan Nation, or groups such as that. The Southern Poverty Law Center has some good information on active "hate groups" in the US, if you're interested in that.).
Sorry, but this pushed some major buttons for me.
Reply
The person who posted that comment was re-defining the problem of hate crimes, which I thought was interesting. In the past I've always heard it defined the way you did above. If that is the way the crime is being viewed and presented, then I stand by my original position, which is that it is absurd to punish one crime more than another identical crime because one is motivated by hatred toward a person because of their affiliation with a group, and the other is motivated by personal hatred or random greed or whatever.
If, however, the question of extra penalties for hate-crimes is asked in relation to crimes that are meant to intimidate a larger group, then I think that those extra penalties would be justified.
Also, I don't think the person who wrote this intended "method" to indicate the weapon used to cause the harm, but rather whether or not the social "device" being used was generalized intimidation. Motive might have been a better word.
And yes, the vast majority of hate crimes are surely on a smaller scale. And yes, the vast majority of people who commit them are probably not thinking (at least consciously) of causing a larger group to be afraid. Which makes prosecuting this way nearly impossible, which is why I said I was setting aside the question of feasability.
Reply
I think you're saying the same thing. The point is not that the perp has consciously planned on intimidating the whole group. When violence is directed toward a person based on their membership in a group, the perp IS, in effect, attacking the entire group. They are not seeing the victim as an individual, they are seeing the group. The effect is, unquestionably, to intimidate the entire group.
Yes, it's simplified, but I think sarahcascade put it very well. The relevant point to me is that the entire group IS a victim of the crime. The perp's conscious motivation isn't very relevant. Most perps are probably not self-aware or intelligent enough to have thought through their complete motivations and all the potential effects of their crimes, anyway.
There is also the fact that a person who is violent toward people based only on their membership in a certain group is more dangerous in society than many other types of people who commit violence. If this person will attack X just because X is gay, then this person is likely to attack other gay people as well, given the opportunity. That perp is a loaded gun, pointed at an entire group of people.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment