Speech vs. Hate
On October 7, 1998, twenty-one year old Matthew Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, and left for dead in a remote area in Colorado. Sheppard, a homosexual, asked his murderers for a ride home from a bar. The police would eventually find his shoes and wallet in the trunk of the murders car (along with the bloody pistol).
During the trial, the defendants attempted to use the “gay panic defense” arguing they were driven to temporary insanity while Sheppard was making advances at them. They were both found guilty, sentenced to life in prison without parole, and are currently in a Nevada maximum-security facility.
Despite the seriousness of the punishment, Shepard’s story created a national discussion on hate crime legislation. Should punishments be more severe if the crimes were racially or religiously motivated? What if the crimes were committed out of hatred of homosexuals? People with disabilities?
In March of last year, The Matthew Sheppard Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives, and has recently passed through the Senate. It increases the severity of a federal crime (not state) if it was committed because of the victims race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
President Bush has promised to veto the bill.
Should criminals be given harsher punishments for a “hate crime”?
Does the first amendment play any role in your answer?
It’s worth noting the Shepard’s killers will never see the light of day again, and were not charged with a hate crime.
posted by CitizenPatriot at 12:51:00 PM
28 Comments:
hrm, messy subject.
Hitler killed less people than Stalin.
Hitler killed groups of people, Stalin killed whoever he pleased.
We as a nation hate Hitler more.
Why?
He killed out of hate, not out of paranoia or any other reason.
I guess whether or not hate crimes should get harsher consequences or not depends on the personal answer to "Which mass murderer do you hate the most?"
Me? Hitler all the way.
6:14 PM
KEVIN SAID...
I think that a crime is a crime, whether or not it is motivated by hate. In America you have the freedom to be racist if you please. Hate crime laws infringe on that right.
7:18 PM
Kevin b,
Perhaps hate crime legislation will allow the government to track hate groups more easily
7:22 PM
Miji,
This is why I hate your liberalism. A murder is a murder. Someone who kills 2 random people should be punished harder than someone who kills 1...regardless of motivation. You disagree?
7:26 PM
Those who commit hate crimes instill a great sense of fear and intimidation in a group as a whole, as opposed to a conditional crime that only targets an individual. More people feel strongly about hate crimes because of their personal affiliation with a targeted group. So does this mean that the only reason hate crimes should have a more severe punishment is only because more people sympathize or feel personally effected?
I think that hate crimes are extremely subjective, and it is almost impossible to generalize and catagorize murder.
7:58 PM
lizzie,
what exactly is subjective about punishing someone harder, albeit symbollically, if they kill or beat a homosexual?
9:25 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:11 AM
I don't think it is such a cut a dry issue. First, to have true justice you must not preside over an issue from a place of hate for a certain person and/or a specific crime but rather from a place that has a healthy respect for two things: The fact that all criminals are not equal in motive or nature, and how severely their crime(s) diminish(s) the quality of our society and humanity. Our society does not take into consideration that when we judge a criminal, we are also judging ourselves. We are determining to take action on this criminal to hopefully teach him a lesson but we are also judging ourselves by standing up-or not-and saying as a society and a species, this is something we will not stand for. Or, vice versa in cases where we fail in providing justice and we stand for things we should not. For example, two people vandalize a building. Person A paints an X on a window, but person B paints a swastika should the latter be judged more harshly than the former? The answer is yes. The reason is because drawing an X on a window while it is troublesome, is not a symbol of hatred and it can be reasonably assumed that while it was a stupid thing to do, person A was not intending to degrade or intimate anyone but was rather just pulling a childish prank. However, person B intentionally set out to demoralize and persecute a religious group. Person A didn't do it to hurt anyone, but person B did. The crime is not the same. the tools used to perpetrate the crime are the same but the crimes themselves are drastically different in nature. I am not saying that person A shouldn't receive punishment or lesson for what he did because he should. But, one has to admit that if he were standing face to face with an X painted on a window he might be annoyed, but if he were standing face to face with a swastika painted on a window he would be hurt. On a side note, justice isn't about punishment, it is about evolving as a society and as a species.
12:16 AM
Daniel,
When someone murders, as did the two people in Elbaum's intro, society should punish the ACT. One kid is dead. That's all that matters.
Regarding your example of the X vs. the swastika, which I believe Elbaum gave in class, is an easy one. They are both defacing property, take the same amount of time to clean up, and are troubling. Both should be punished equally.
9:21 AM
Of course when two people murder someone they should be punished equally. However all crimes are not as clear cut as Mr. Elbaum's example in class. This example with the defacing property that I used is however, different. The issue is not how long they take to clean up. And one can not say that an X is as troubling as a swastika. The meaning behind the symbol demoralizes, degrades, and persecutes a set group of human beings. It takes away the humanity of that group and makes it easier for others to persecute them. If you were to say to me that you are equally offended by an X on a store front window as you are a Swastika I would be hard pressed to believe you. There is a reason we become more upset about a swastika in a store front window than an X. The severity of punishment should be relative to the hurt/damage caused. It stands to reason that "damage caused" in this context can not only be measured on physical damage but also mental anguish.
12:42 PM
yo billy,
i see your point, but i'm trying to say that if every individual murder case/ hate crime is different, how can we look at hate crimes collectively and decide that they require more severe punishments?
1:26 PM
oh wait.. i dont think billy left that comment..
so that was for whoever asked the question... :-)
1:27 PM
Daniel,
Who decides morality? Who decides what's offensive or not?
The government? Me? You? SEEMS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE!
How about we treat crimes as crimes. An "X" defaces property, and should be punished with a fine. A swastica defaces property, and should be punished with a fine...NOT A HIGHER FAN BECAUSE YOU, OR THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO FIND IT OFFENSIVE...."offensive speech" is protected (like flag burning)
3:03 PM
Miji,
How can you hate hilter more when stalin killed more people?
3:47 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
7:11 PM
Pluto the issue you are not taken into account is that as a society we don't just judge the event, but also the motive. For example, and please understand I am not saying that the person in this example should not receive a punishment. Example: A 25 year old who has gone through all the proper channels to get loans and find the money to pay for a life saving heart surgery for his 8 year old son and has failed to raise the funds. (this was actually a movie you might remember, except he breaks into a hospital). Anyway, after he has failed he holds up a bank and in the course of the robbery the robber becomes flustered and distraught for whatever reason and in the heat of the moment shoots and kills a hostage. Now picture the scenario except this time the robber just wants money and doesn't care who gets hurt. Not only doesn't care, but is prepared to kill if necessary and in the course of the robbery does kill without hesitation and without looking back. Both hostages are dead and it is true that the families of the victims aren't going to care why this happened to their loved ones. But the crimes are not the same. One is premeditated and the other is truly unintentional. Both criminals are responsible for what they have done, and both must pay for what they have done, BUT both crimes are not the same. Motive must play a part. In the first scenario who is to say that those who didn't help the father aren't responsible as well. This is why the example with the X and the swastika are in fact different. The motive for putting an X on a window could be to annoy, could be to deface, etc. But the motive behind putting a swastika on a window isn't to deface so much as it is to send a message to destroy the humanity of a certain group which, makes it easier to destroy that group. Now it doesn't matter if it is aimed towards Jews or African Americans, or whom ever. The point is that motive is what dictates-in our society-the severity of crimes. As far as who determines right from wrong, it is our conscience. There are certain things everyone knows are wrong or right. It is built into our systems. I personally believe societies tend to develop out of this sense and when they don't it isn't because people don't have this sense or don't understand it, but because we can choose to ignore it. I am sure everyone who is reading this blog can think of a time when they knew something they had done was wrong before cognitively knowing why and without having to know why, cognitively. Our conscience tells us what we have done is wrong or right and our ability to reason tells us what to do next. Anyway, sorry for the rambling on...forgive me.
7:25 PM
Billy the Kid,
People that commit hate crimes kill more brutally and their violent crimes are more likely to end in death. I can understand a robbing goes wrong, someone gets shot, end of story. Average crime, guy deserves 20 to life. But a hate crime is far more likely to be planned out - a murder in cold blood. That automatically raises the sentence. If a klan member decides to harass a minority family for weeks before killing them (FAR more likely to be multiple homocide) then it makes me feel sick - I think that if punishment were harsher for bigot crimes, they'd fall in number.
A DUI in Europe is automatic loss of your driver's license for life. The same crime under the same circumstances is a slap on the wrist suspension in America. On an unrelated note, more people die in alcohol-related automobile accidents in America.
Are Europeans better drunk drivers or more afraid of the penalties?
I'm not crazy about death, so I think that any measures that can be taken to prevent it should be.
Oh, and I'm a conservative Marxist - don't confuse respect for life with a political affiliation.
Todd Packer,
Hitler didn't do anything to me.
Stalin ruined the lives of my greatgrandparents and millions of other Soviets.
Stalin killed a bunch of people - political "enemies" mostly, he sent ill-equipped soldiers to die on the frontlines, and his economic reform policies left countless families hungry.
I hate Hitler more because he killed homosexuals, gypsies, invalids, Jews, and other "enemies of the state." -
Stalin didn't care about your lifestyle, religion, color, whatever - if you pissed him off, you're gone.
You choose (very unwisely) to oppose Stalin or join the army - you're born a homosexual, gypsy, invalid, or Jew.
8:02 PM
Wow. A lot of comments on this particular post. Way to start some controversy, Mr. E!
I don't see how a punishment could become much worse - a life sentence? Would death be preferable? I think so.
In regards to crimes of lesser intensity - why should hate crimes stimulate harsher punishments? Are they not identical to similar crimes being commited out of spite? jealousy? anger? Does the stimulus of the emotion determine the punishment? It shouldn't.
Subsequently, one could ask the question:
If a man steals bread for his starving family, should he serve less time than a man who steals for himself?
Well, should he?
Are these questions not of the same essence?
8:21 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8:26 PM
If you say Hitler didn't do anything to you, I have to disagree. You are affected by what Hitler did for the simple fact that you are alive and I assume care what happens to your fellow man. It shouldn't matter if stalin killed more both dictators were evil and committed atrocities to human kind. We should not be debating whether one is crueler than the other because he killed more the bottom line is it doesn't matter if someone kills 1 person or 6 million what matter is that they are dead and in the cases of stalin and hitler, it was utter madness.
8:27 PM
First of all for Bush to say he will veto this just shows his incompetence as a leader. Leaders are supposed to take care of the people under him/her and for him to allow hate to go on with minimal punishment is not right. Along with many things that he has been wrong on this is just another to add on to his long list.
9:53 PM
a crime is a crime. Whether you are murdering someone of another race or someone of the same race, you are still murdering or committing a crime and the punishment should be the same. Obviously you hate whoever you are murdering and it shouldn't matter the reasoning behidn it, all that matters is that you did it and you are guilty. It can be said that any crime shows hatred, because in the moment that the crime is committed, you are hating the person you are robbing, or murdering, regardless of skin color or ethnicity.
ellis
I POSTED ON THE BLOG BE HAPPY ELBAUM!
6:33 PM
Elbaum....
First of all, I sincerely apologize for the unprecedented delay in my blogging. Well, I will repeat what I have said in class thus far. I believe that a crime is a crime. Although as a Jewish man, I have a personal vendetta (yes a little strong but truthful) against hate crimes, in a nation that prides itself on equality, secularity, neutrality, and freedom, it is only right that we understand that just the freedoms of the masses, but of the minorities as well.
I do not use the term minorities here in the sense of black, hispanic, jewish, etc. but in regards to the dissenting opinions of racism, anti-semitism, and descrimination that are unfortunately highly prevalent in modern society.
Hypothetically, if this proposed bill passes, think of the reprecussions. No longer is the American judicial system acting upon the case at hand, but will be legislating morality and motive. This isn't law and order: criminal intent where there is subliminal motives and psychological illnesses, these are simply people who have different reasons for doing the same crime. After we legislate motive against racism, what's next? Why not suspend the first ammendment rights to all? We can't allow someone to be racist, why don't you try not to be a democrat, a republican, a Jew, a Christian, a African-American, a Latino, a lawyer, a protester, a civil rights activist, or a doctor. The rights that would taken away (implied via bill) are catastrophic to the American government, and as a result new precedents would need to be set, racism (which is synanomous with freedom of speech) would be abolished, and all those against would bring forth all the consequences that closely correlate with such legislation.
Love always,
Mr. Blog
9:29 PM
I agree with Jordan. Punishments for hate crimes definetly should not be harsher than punishments for other crimes. Its not like just because the person was killed because they were a certain religion or ethnicity they died a worse death, the result is the same. Dying is dying.
2:48 PM
Anon-
you are not taking all factors into consideration. When a person murders someone in a fit of rage it is an awful thing and he should be held responsible for what he has done. What you don't realize is that when someone kills someone as in a hate crime they are not only committing it against an individual, they are committing it against a race, culture, religion, orientation, etc. These crimes must be hold a more severe punishment otherwise you end up with another Hitler trying to do what he called purifying the races. There is a difference between a drug store robbery gone wrong-which is "IN IT'S OWN RIGHT" terrible and must be handled, but it is quite another thing to kill someone as in a hate crime which if left unchecked has lead to the near extinction of entire races of people, Native Americans, Jews, what is happening in Darfor, etc. There is a saying, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. If we punish un-equal crimes equally, we have lost all hope of ever evolving. Not all crimes are equal, not even murder. A gunman breaks into someones house the Man of the house, protecting, his family with intent takes a shot gun a blows his head off has opposed to subduing him or aiming for the leg, that is murder, period. Now we as Americans say he is within his rights to do so because he is protecting his family , and maybe he is, but anyway you spin that, it is murder with intent to commit murder regardless of what the law says it is. Would you punish him the same way you would the burgler who broke in, if the bergler had been able to kill the father instead when the father surprised him. In this scenario , which by the way is not far fetched, the one who would actually be firing in self defense, is the robber. I'm not saying he is right for breaking in and I am not saying the father is wrong for protecting his family. I am saying that If the father murdered the robber we would be more lenient, and if the robber murdered the father we wouldn't be, there is a reason for that.
12:39 AM
By the way Miji Hitler killed who ever he desired to kill as well. 12 million people died, 1/2 of those people were Jewish, the other half were non-Jews. If Hitler had gotten his way, lots more people would have died, Jewish or otherwise.
12:41 AM
Isn't all crime "HATE" crimes . you dont kill people because you love them. It is also diffcult to jugde why some one killed that person. If a white male killed a black male because he didnt like that person because of who he is then, who is to say. Will thge prosectures take it as a hate crime or a regular crime to is to offcate what crimes are hate or whcih are not.
10:27 AM
daniel-- yes, hitler killed many more people other than just jews, but what you must understand is that most of these other people were also specific GROUPS that he was targeting: homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, etc. My cultural roots, like Miji's, lie in Russia. my grandma's younger brother starved to death, died in her arms in stalin's russia. my great-grandpa died in WWII. my great-aunt died in infancy b/c grandma's family was too poor to get a doctor to see her (although even that may not have saved her then.) personally, i hate both stalin and hitler equally. i think it would be very hard to say which was truly "worse." however, as other people have pointed out, hate crimes target a whole GROUP of people, not just one person. i'm jewish. if a synagogue in my neighborhood was vandalized by some idiots who spray-painted swastikas on it, i am upset/intimidated/scared/angry/saddened, even though it's not MY synagogue.
Kevin B, hate crimes are definitely not protected by free speech!! you are allowed to SAY you hate a particular group. there's nothing we can do about that. you're allowed to hate, and you're allowed to discuss it with others in a public forum. i agree with that. BUT, if you systematically attack, intimidate, injure, rob, kill etc. a group, those are CRIMES, not speech! and they should be punished!
in response to Bluto, i understand how you feel about the "who gets to decide what's moral?" question. however, i think that we, as a people, should be able to agree upon A FEW things that are UNACCEPTABLE in a civilized and liberated society. for example, i find porn disgusting and offensive, but i don't favor making it illegal because, in the end, it hurts no one. (forcing people, especially small children, to make porn is a different story. i'm talking about voluntarily made stuff here.) however, hate crimes DO hurt people. i think if we have tougher laws for hate crimes than for normal ones, we send a message that this is unacceptable and hopefully we will see a drop in the number/severity of hate crimes, which would be the ideal effect.
8:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home