What Is “Hate” Crime?
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
I am often perplexed by situations wherein one group of people feel that it is hateful and should be illegal for another group to feel and demonstrate pride in its existence. What makes speech against one group “hateful” or illegal but speech against the other group perfectly acceptable? The difference seems to simply be that one group has been determined to be a minority.
Let’s take this hypothetical situation under consideration and see how silly this can be.
Texas is a big state and for the sake of this argument we’re going to decide that it has 100 million residents.
Louisiana is a slightly smaller state and for the sake of this argument we’re going to decide that it has 25 million residents.
Also for the sake of this argument we’re going to create a fictional dispute between the two states over some natural resource that we’ll call the green widget. Now in the course of the dispute over which state should prosper the most from the green widget another battle rages behind the scenes. It seems that the people in Texas get a little tired of having to say “people from Louisiana” all the time so they create a nickname based on the abbreviation for the state and an “S” - creating the shortened word LAs. People from Louisiana, for whatever reason, take offense to the use of the term “LAs” and sue in federal court to have any Texan who uses the term “LAs” to refer to people from Louisiana charged with a hate crime. You see, the Louisianians, or LAs, because they are so few in number compared to the Texans, are an identifiable minority and feel that the use of the shortened form of their state name is insulting, potentially degrading, and must therefore qualify as hate speech because it demeans their very existence.
Representatives from Texas fight the case citing such things as the First Amendment Right to free speech and the fact that the term “LAs” does not promote hate, endorse or induce violence, and in no way demeans people from the state of Louisiana.
The court’s decision is that the term “LAs”, while not illegal, is commonly used to demean a minority people and so recommends against its accepted common usage. Texans celebrate because they’ve retained their right of free speech and Louisianians file an appeal with a higher court citing the bigotry and prejudice of the court that ruled against them.
Some forty or fifty years later on a college campus in Texas another protocol battle is waged wherein one group of students form a campus organization to research, document and celebrate the history of the great state of Texas. A smaller group of students, being from Louisiana, file a complaint with the campus administration claiming that the existence of the Texas History & Culture Celebration Organization (THCCO) is prejudicial and the mere existence of it comprises the essence of hate group promoting hate speech against LAs. The THCCO, however, says that its membership is open to all campus students; that anyone can join; that no prejudicial rules or operative guidelines exist.
Let’s stop there: what this now boils down to is that Group A disagrees with the outlook of Group B, and since Group A is comprised of people from a previously identified minority, they claim that the mere existence of Group B comprises a hate crime or promotes hate speech. I take HUGE issue with this.
Why is it illegal or hateful for the members of one historical culture to celebrate their history but not illegal for another? What makes the history and culture of one group of people any more important that the history and culture of EVERY group of people?
Now I’ll ask probably the biggest question on some of your minds: Why is this on a police blog? Here’s why…
Law enforcement professionals, each and every day all across this great country of ours, are called to the scene of a crime where someone claims a “hate crime” was committed. The number of such crimes used to be relatively small but since the term and qualifications for such a label grew, the number of “hate crimes” committed in America each year has grown. Depending on how you interpret the data collected that can make our country look like it’s a hot bed of growing intolerance and “hate” actions. What’s the reality?
Reality, and this is just MY opinion, is probably that ALL crime is hateful. Murdering someone is pretty hateful. Raping someone is pretty hateful. It doesn’t matter what race, religion, nationality, gender, age, etc of the intended victim is: crime is hateful. If we must label these crimes as different from “regular” crimes because they target a minority, then how about if we call them “minority crimes”? Or does that make too many people think that a member of a minority committed the crime? It has always bothered me that one crime is considered more serious than another crime simply because of the protected status of the victim. Robbery is robbery no matter what protected group (or not) the victim is a part of. Murder is murder the same way.
How much time and energy do we spend tracking information about the victims in an attempt to insure that crime is being committed equitably across the demographic of our country’s citizenship?
What are YOUR thoughts on the matter? Please monitor your language in your response - but I look forward to reading your thoughts, comments, agreement, disagreement, etc.
Editor’s Note: For those of you who may be thinking this is about race, it’s actually not. The topic of this blog was spawned by a recent news story about one campus organization promoting a political outlook and another group of citizens on campus that feel the political outlook is hate-based because it alienates, by belief structure, not by treatment, their cultural heritage.
It is NOT a hate crime simply because the victim is a member of a “protected minority”. It is a hate crime because the victim was specifically targeted BECAUSE they are a member of a minority group. THAT’S the difference. When an individual is targeted for a crime not because anything specific the individual has done, but solely or at least in part because they happen to be a minority, that SHOULD result in additional punishment.
If you don’t take motive into consideration, then there would be no such thing as accidental homicide or manslaughter. ALL incidents (car accident, firearm misfire, premeditated murder, etc) where a person dies because of the actions of another would be prosecuted and sentenced the EXACT same way because, afterall, a person is dead regardless. But obviously we DO take motive into account, and if you target someone for a crime because they are gay or black or catholic, then you should receive additional punishment.
Sheeple:
We are in agreement. If the motive or part thereof is due to the person’s minority status, then additional punishment can be justified. But let me ask you this: how about when a person of a minority group specifically targets a person of a majority group simply because they are of that majority group? Isn’t that equally hateful? How come those crimes are never labled “hate crimes”?
And let me add this… what I was objecting to - again - in this article was how one group felt another group was promoting “hate” simply because the second group was celebrating a proud heritage. Apparently, only minority groups can celebrate their pride and heritage? - at least in the view of some people. I think every culture should be equally allowed to celebrate their heritage and the pride they feel about it.
The challenge we face is fairly labeling hate crimes. Everyone in the world is equally capable of hating, yet only minorities can be victims of “hate crimes”. How fair is that?
Other thoughts?
Hate-crimes originated as a way to make up for the historical lack of prosecution that often occured when the perpetrator was of the majority and the victim was of a minority group. Specifically I’m thinking about whites committing crimes against blacks or indians or jews and getting off with lighter (or no) sentences because of societal-wide prejudice. So historically minorities have not been treated equally by our justice system.
I agree that in a perfect world there would be no need for ANY hate crimes legislation. But in reality there is still a LOT of discrimination out there, and it is STILL directed primarily at minority groups. So while a white man could certainly be targeted for a crime simply because he’s white, history shows that simply seldom happens and even when it does it doesn’t have the same “terrorizing” effect on the majority community as it does within a minority group.
As for pride & heritage, of course everyone should be equally allowed to celebrate their heritage and feel proud about it. But are you celebrating the actual accomplishments or your particular group, or are you really just celebrating that you’re not a member of another group? Polish people celebrate their shared culture & heritage, but they’re not just celebrating the fact that they’re not Germans. All the “White Pride” groups tend to fall in the camp of not so much celebrating their shared culture or history, but mostly taking pride & celebrating the fact that they’re not black (or mexican or jew or whatever).
You also make the mistake of assuming that only minorities are protected by hate-crimes legislation. NOT true. It covers ALL races, not just minority races. It covers ALL religions, not just minority religions. And now it will protect ALL sexual orientations, not just the gays.
So your assertion that only minorities can be victims of hate-crimes is simply incorrect. If an athiest (minority) burns down a christian church (majority)because he/she hates religious people, then he/she could be charged with a hate crime. Same applies for black on white crime or gay on straight crime.
Again, it goes back to the original misconception most people have. Hate crimes are based on the motivation of the criminal, NOT the status of the victim, so straight white christian men can indeed be victims of hate-crimes.
“Hate crimes” were probably conceived with good intentions but just like many other good intentions have been sidetracked by special interest groups. Case in point is the Matthew Shepard robbery and murder. It has come to light that Shepard was not targeted because of his sexual orientation but was lured to his death by two young men who had planned to rob him. This is from the two, who are in prison, in an interview with 20/20 that is due to air in November. I have always believed that all crimes committed against another person are hate crimes because, if not the crime would not have been committed at all.
Sheeple is absolutely correct. The basic premise of this article is completely false. Hate Crime statutes don’t just protect minorities. They apply to protect anyone, and simply criminalize a particular kind of intent. The kind of statutes the author imagines would likely be unconstitutional on their face because they would run afoul of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I’m disappointed that Officer.com would run such an obviously flawed article and perpetuate an ignorant and misplaced view of the law.
Mortimer:
I reiterate: this blog posting is of my opinion only and does not reflect the outlook of Officer.com, its owning company, or any other person or employee connected thereto.
Thank you for your comment. Once again too I reiterate that the basic topic of this blog entry is not whether or not hate crime laws fairly and equally protect all people, but how some groups accuse other groups of promoting hate simply because they disagree with the belief structure of that group.
I don’t think it’s just because they have a differing opinion. I know I feel many religious groups are “hate groups” NOT just because I disagree with them on theological issues, but rather because of HOW they expresss their disagreement with my side. The ones I consider hate groups don’t simple express their views, but actively campaign against my right to equal treatment under the law. Of course these same hypocrits already enjoy those very same rights or “special protections”.
Of course none of these issues rises to the level of a hate crime under any stretch of the imagination because we’re talking about constitutionally protected speech. Now if they are actively advocating violence against an individual or group that directly results in a violent crime against person or property, then yes, they can and should be charged with accessory to a crime. But that is already done under current law and has nothing to do with any hate-crimes legislation.
People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will “criminalize” a person’s thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.
But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack a person’s person or property. I don’t care if Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that’s a different story.
Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There’s a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a “tag” on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.
Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disengenuous.
I think some people have missed the point of Frank’s post. What he seems to be taking issue with is the fact that some minority groups are allowed (and by allowed I mean it is socially accepted) to create groups celebrating their heritage or aimed at promoting their wlefare, or simply only for their people, while if other (read majority) groups were to do the same their comes an uproar, often from the minority groups performing a similiar function. He finds this type of activity hypocritical, and I agree.
What we need to strive for in this country is equality of opportunity. If I take a test and score higher then I scored higher - it shouldn’t matter what race, gender, or sexual orientation I am. The pre-occupation in this country with equality of outcome is simply pro-longing tensions.
Thank you, Jake. You said it better and with fewer words than I did.