Dateline: 5/3/00
Updated: 5/10/00 - Conspiracies and Extremism Guide Marc Fisher, an opponent of hate crime laws, responded to this article; I responded to him, and so The Hate Crimes Debate was born.
Brandon Teena
Scott Amedure
Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill
Amy Robinson
Matthew Shepard
James Byrd
Barry Winchell
Anita Gordon, Theo Than, Ji-Ye-Sun, Garry Lee and Anil Thakur.
These are only a few of the more well-known victims of "hate crimes." There are thousands more: Almost 10,000 of them in 1998 alone, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The ever-growing list stands as gruesome testimony to the need to address hate in America more effectively. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to expand and enhance current hate crime laws in an effort to do just that. President Clinton and Attorney General Reno support this legislation. The National Organization for Women supports it. Civil rights organizations around the country support it. People whose opinions I respect support it. So why am I so ambivalent about it?
I don't mean to imply that there aren't parts of this legislation that I whole-heartedly support. Current hate crime law mandates additional penalties for acts of violence based on a person’s race, color, religion or national origin, and provides for federal prosecution of such crimes if they are committed to interfere with federally protected rights, such as voting or serving on a jury. The legislation pending in Congress would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to the categories of bias crimes covered, and would provide for federal prosecution of such crime:
"where in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or where the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce."
I also disagree with those who say that "hate crimes" are "thought policing." In my opinion, establishing whether the perpetrator was motivated by hate for the group the victim represented is no different than establishing whether the crime was premeditated. In fact, establishing a motive is usually a part of establishing premeditation.
So, what is it that bothers me about this legislation? Perhaps I am simply blinded to the benefits of this proposed law by the use of the word "hate."
If I can point to any rational reason for my ambivalence at all, it's this: The word "hate" implies an emotionalism that I don't think is present in most "hate crimes." Even worse, it would seem to leave an open door for using that emotionalism as a mitigating factor, as implied by a recent report from CNN, "Pittsburgh shooting spree suspect will use insanity defense." Baumhammers' Free Market Party website has been returned to the web by his internet service provider with a special introductory page urging readers to donate to the victims' fund. A quick reading of the small site makes clear that his "insanity" was simply hatred of non-European immigrants.
I can see the defense strategy of hate-crime perpetrators now: "Gee, Judge, I was just so blinded by hate that I didn't know what I was doing." Bull-pucky. The perpetrators may indeed hate the group the victim represents, but - for the most part - their crimes are methodically premeditated. They select their victims in cold blood, not in a hot-blooded haze of hate.
I question too, whether the motive is truly hate. I'm sure hate is a factor, but I think the true motivation is to terrorize, demoralize and silence the group that is the object of the perpetrator's hate. Whether the target is an ethnic group, members of a particular religion, gays and lesbians, or "uppity women," the effect of the crime reaches far beyond the original victim to instill fear in other members of that group. And this is no accident. According to the American Psychological Association, "Hate crimes are message crimes... They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome in a particular neighborhood, community, school or workplace." It was not coincidental that Baumhammers' "rampage" left a Jewish woman, an Indian man, two Asian men and a black man dead, and left another Indian man critically wounded. His judgement was not clouded as he chose his targets in his effort to re-write the message of his website in blood: "I don't want you here." I doubt there's a non-European-descent person living in Pittsburgh that didn't "get" the message.
For that expanded "pool" of victims alone, additional penalties seem warranted. And, in the final analysis, I think the pending hate crimes legislation is probably necessary, if for no other reason than the unfortunate fact that, too often, state and local authorities are not responsive to victims of hate crimes. But let's not let the word "hate" blind us to the cold-blooded nature of such crimes, and let's be clear on the crime we're talking about: "Hate crimes" are an act of terrorism where real flesh-and-blood people are coldly used as mere instruments for sending a message to a targeted group. Such crimes deserve the harshest penalties available under the law. And on that point, I feel no ambivalence at all.
Hop over to the The Hate Crimes Debate and see what others have to say.
The Baumhammers case
Another Pittsburgh Shooting Spree
A look at the Baumhammer case from Race Relations Guide Kimberly Hohman.
Five Killed in Shooting Rampage
First coverage from CNN
Immigration Attorney Goes On Shooting Spree
The Baumhammer case viewed by Immigration Guides Jennifer and Peter Wipf
Shooting spree suspect will use insanity defense
CNN's coverage of Baumhammers' lawyer's statement.
Shooting Suspect's Web Page Back Online
Report from CNN on Baumhammers' web site.
Research
Hate Crimes Legislation
Pending legislation relating to Hate Crimes.
Civilrights.org: Hate Crimes
Extensive information about hate crimes, from Civilrights.org
Hate Crimes
Links from Race Relations Guide Kimberly Hohman
Hate Crimes: State Laws
A clickable map to each state's hate crimes laws, from MSNBC
The Human Rights Campaign: Hate Crimes
Commentary on the pending Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Politics: Hate Crimes
Links from Gay/Lesbian Issues Guide Deborah Levinson
About.com Commentary on Hate Crimes
The Absurdity of "Bias Crime" Laws
About.com Crime/Punishment Guide Bill Bickel questions whether brutal murders deserve lesser penalties simply because they weren't "hate crimes."
Hate Crimes
Gay/Lesbian Issues Guide Deborah Levinson looks at hate crime debate after the outrage from Shepard's murder dies down, and finds little changed.
Hate Crimes Legislation
President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno spoke out on pending hate crimes legislation Tuesday in the hopes of increasing public support of new hate crimes legislation. A report from Race Relations Guide Kimberly Hohman.
Hate Crime Means Thought Crime
Hate-crime legislation is about acts that are already illegal. Hate-crime legislation, therefore, doesn’t criminalize acts, instead, it penalizes the thoughts of criminals says Civil Liberties Guide J.D. Tuccille.
Dear Mr. President...
Conspiracies and Extremism Guide Marc E. Fisher argues against hate crime laws in an open letter to President Clinton.
Wyoming Murder Sparks Hate Crimes Debate
About.com Law Guide Paul Reed presents a thoughtful argument for the true value of hate crime laws - prosecuting offenders for the harassment and intimidation caused by repeated minor crimes.
More forum topics: