RuthAnne: Most states across the Union currently have hate-crime legislation on their books. Utah needs to get with the program and pass a workable, effective hate- crimes law. It is necessary to protect all members of society.
Andrew: But the law is supposed to be universal, it should apply the same way for all people. When criminals are prosecuted for hate crimes, it shows preference to certain minorities. The message is sent that minority victims deserve more justice than others.
RuthAnne: But courts differentiate crimes all the time. When determining if a murder is first, second or third-degree-or just manslaughter, mindsets and internal motivations are taken into consideration.
Andrew: But when a murder is committed, whether or not it was a hate crime, the court applies the same rules to differentiate. The system is fair because first-degree murder is first degree regardless of the race of the victim or killer. Hate crime legislation adds more punishment – to the first degree. That’s extra punishment because of a person’s belief. That’s unconstitutional.
RuthAnne: The Supreme Court says its constitutional. The deciding case was a black man killed a white man out of prejudice (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). Under hate crime legislation, the black man received the same punishment that would have been given if the roles had been reversed.
Andrew: If any race can be given extra punishment for committing a crime out of prejudice, then hate crimes laws have no purpose. No crimes are committed out of love and tolerance. The only value the legislation would have is to protect a minority. If all people are subject to extra punishment, than why not just increase the penalty for all crimes?
RuthAnne: You’re right-no crimes are committed out of love or tolerance. Some are committed out of anger, greed or other human emotions. Hate crimes are different from other crimes because they inspire fear in a group of people. Hate crimes are domestic terrorism, and need to be treated as such.
Andrew: But that implies that you want to make hate illegal. There are many reasons to hate, some rational, some irrational. My grandfather and many members of his generation are racist. He would never hurt another person, but should Homeland Security monitor him because events in his childhood bred irrational hate?
RuthAnne: Hate crime enhancements only apply to actual crimes. Thought is not a crime, nor is speech. A person has to be convicted of an actual criminal act before they can be convicted of a hate crime enhancement. Speech is constitutionally protected, and can’t be punished.
Andrew: But hate crime legislation does punish ideas and speech. Granted, it’s not until a crime is committed, but there’s something wrong with a system that adds extra penalties because they disagree with the thoughts that led to a crime. If someone bombs an abortion clinic, should the fact that they’re pro-life warrant extra punishment?
RuthAnne: Our society already punishes things it disagrees with more harshly. Our society disagrees with revenge. That is why premeditated murder is more harshly punished than murder committed in the heat of passion.
Andrew: Granted. But how far should this go? Everyone agrees premeditated murder deserves harsher treatment because no ideology supports revenge. Unfortunately, there are elements within our society who don’t agree targeting minorities is bad. We all wish people who feel that way didn’t live in our society, but they do and their presence is constitutionally protected. If society punishes ideas it disagrees with, those ideas must be universally abhorred. Otherwise the protector becomes the discriminator.
RuthAnne: Government passes laws the majority of society views as for “the greater good” of humanity all the time. Many of these laws are not universally agreed upon. That’s why abortion is legal and gay marriage isn’t. People disagree with those two laws, but that does not invalidate them.
Andrew: That view favors majority rule. The whole premise of hate crime legislation is to protect minorities.
RuthAnne: It’s not for minorities. It’s about protecting everyone in society. Furthermore, the decision to pursue a hate crime enhancement is at the individual level.
Andrew: It’s still punishing hate. But not every kind of hate, just certain kinds. If extra punishment is given for hate, every crime from domestic to international should be evaluated for hate motivations. Only prohibiting race, sex, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation directed hate is irrational. Why not stop all hate?
RuthAnne: Because you can’t prove all kinds of hate. The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor, should he or she decide to pursue a hate crimes punishment-enhancement. The prosecutor has to be able to prove to a judge and jury that the primary motivation behind the crime was prejudice or bias, or it won’t matter anyway.
Andrew: I’m arguing that a particular type of legislation is irrational and unfair. Your answer to this is that making it rational or fair is too hard. If it can’t be done right, it shouldn’t be done at all.
RuthAnne: Just because a system isn’t completely perfect doesn’t mean it should be done away with completely. Part of hate crime legislation is about sending a message.
Andrew: We both agree that hate crimes are bad. We both agree the government should do something to stop them. But hate crime legislation is a problematic solution. It never works to implement “the best solution conceived so far” if that solution creates as many problems as it solves. You’re right that no laws are perfect. Some laws should be passed despite their problems simply because desperate times call for desperate measures. But this isn’t one of those times. Hate crimes are not so prolific that desperate, irrational and unfair laws must be passed because alternatives are not available.
Government needs to find a way of stopping hate crimes that doesn’t add extra punishment for personal beliefs.
RuthAnne: Since Congress ordered the FBI to track hate crimes in 1991, statistics have shown these crimes increasing significantly across the country.
This is a huge problem that goes unnoticed in our society because we don’t place enough importance on the issue.
Hate crime legislation is not inherently flawed; the Supreme Court has already decided that.