I guess Lady Justice got Lasik

photo credit: ilkin.

The hate crime debate has stirred back up as the house recently passed legislation to include several other groups and as usual it’s a simple yet complex issue.  Simple yet complex in the sense that people either over simplify or over complicate based on their agenda.  The left says it’s a matter of protecting certain groups from discrimination and violence, while the right says it disrupts the idea of equal justice under the law.  Like almost every single issue that passes through congress, and hasn’t already been decided by lobbyists, both sides are right and wrong.  Neither side has the intelligence nor integrity to actually address the issue correctly and come up with a solution together that helps everyone.  I’ll go ahead and throw in my two cents but two pennies are not nearly enough to combat special interests bent on getting their way no matter what.

I’ll start with the right because—let’s face it—they are an easy target nowadays, and once again they have taken the stance closest to my own while simultaneously completely missing the point.  They are taking the stance that by passing legislation to increase punishment on people that attack a certain group you are in effect getting rid of equal justice.  One question I heard recently is, “If I punch you in the face because you have a stupid hat (rather then the color of your skin), is your nose any less broken?” which is a valid point. Damage done to an individual is not determined by the motivation for the attack.  At the same time, people do not attack other people based on hat style while they do attack other people based on things like skin color or sexual preference.  There is something the right is not seeing here and that is that the proponents of this legislation have a valid point, although most are probably missing that point.

Hate crimes are seen as more disruptive to society, in that someone is attacked because they’re representative of a group.  Regardless of why a person is attacked, it is society’s job to seek justice, not revenge, and that includes action to prevent the crime from reoccurring. You could argue that attacks based on group affiliation are more likely to reoccur due to lack of significant motive. Someone who attacks another person for sleeping with his spouse is less likely to repeat offend than someone who attacks a person because of the color of his skin. That is unless his spouse is really promiscuous.  To put it simply, someone who attacks due to adultery is less of a threat than someone who attacks people based on disability, if only for the significantly lower amount of available victims.  In the end it’s about getting groups of completely different people to live and work together, which is what justice is about.  Revenge is an individual thing while justice is about correcting behavior so everyone can live together.  People may feel better knowing that someone is behind bars and is being punished, but the goal is not to make some people feel better.

I can see why they would pass a law like this, but I don’t agree. The justice system is supposed to assess and administer a more severe punishment if the circumstances warrant. This essentially takes that decision out of their hands, somewhat. If a guy comes home and finds someone of a different ethnicity banging his wife then stabs the guy while calling him a racial slur it could be classified as a hate crime and he could receive a more severe punishment. No doubt stabbing the guy is not justified, but to receive a harsher punishment because he used a racial slur before committing his crime is not justice.  The examples are endless and varied for how this legislation can go wrong, but it’s pretty much about the left getting tag lines for their re-election campaigns.  That may seem harsh, but the fact is they are not trying to change anything. They’re just slapping legislation out there that will make them look good.  I mean, who can argue against it?

The left’s biggest problem is that they are looking at people as groups and not people.  They are essentially saying that because of the status of certain groups as minorities they deserve extra justice.  You can tell this position is flawed because they had to redo it to include more groups.  What happens when there’s another group that needs to be added? It’s now more of crime for a group of men to randomly attack someone of a different skin color than for the same group to attack a random person because he’s fat, from a different school, has a different political opinion, or any other reason. Attacks or offenses based solely on an ignorant bias are more harmful than those with a specific motive, but that intention should be determined by a judge and jury—not grand standing politicians.  Revenge is about consoling the victim; justice is about dealing with someone who violated another’s rights.

You can’t determine justice based on the victim, especially when the only reason for the attack is ignorant bias.  It has to deal with the offender and what the offender did.  Which makes more sense—a law against assaulting a certain religious sect, or a law against assault period?  Obviously the latter, and from there you deal with punishment.  There’s reason for a range of punishments.  Someone who assaults his accountant because he found out the accountant had been stealing would obviously get a lesser sentence than someone who joined a group of people in assaulting someone for no other reason than being different.  The question that should be debated is whether the existing system is working to protect members of society that are victims of random acts of violence motivated by bigotry.  Are there enough instances out there of people not receiving adequate punishment and repeat offending?  Would legislation giving judges and juries the option of additional punishment, based on the crime being violent and motivated by bigotry, be sufficient to correct the problem?

Of course no one on either side will admit that they can’t solve a problem based on sweeping over generalized legislation.  What would congress do if it weren’t constantly stacking shitty laws on top of other shitty laws?  As usual, it’s name-calling and political machinations.  The very notion of creating legislation that would allow people to decide is toxic to politicians.  All they see is affiliations, color, creed, preference, and everything else that divides people.  The very thought that we are a nation that is so diverse that many of the “solutions” they come up with will not work everywhere and for everyone is unthinkable.  Specifically because it would involve them giving up power.  They can’t see people because that involves looking past everything else that they can use to get votes or sway opinion.  Race, religion, and party affiliation are tools they use to control people.  They don’t want to prevent attacks against people who are different; they want to prevent attacks against certain people who they decide deserve that protection.  When they need a certain group’s votes they’ll add them to the list until everyone is on it and all we have accomplished is increasing the punishment for everyone regardless of the group to which they belong.  Which will bring us right back to where we started, only with the incumbents having more special interest money in their pockets.

Tagged as: congress, Current Events, equal justice, hate crime, justice, legislation