The Cynic Express(ed) 2.08: Hating Hate Crime Laws

     Although the murder of Matthew Shepard has left a dry, gritty distaste in my mouth and in my consciousness, I am not quite ready to join the chorus of politicians ready to issue tangental sound-bites or misguided gay rights activists who take this opportunity to clamor on the bell of new, comprehensive, sweeping Hate Crimes legislation and get their names in papers across the country. After all, behind the tragedy that this story presents to us from the whirling maelstrom of modern American tragedies, lies an ugly but all-too-common crime. People commit such crimes for love, lack of love, money, pride, and sometimes hate. On variety is no more special nor worthy of our distaste, disgust, and/or the weight of our moral and legal sanction.

     But the proponents of Hate Crimes legislation can bang on their drums louder than the voice of reason, which often speaks quietly but firmly. Any criminal legislation can defend its sanction in the terms of deterrence or of retribution. Hate Crimes legislation, in the recent blizzard of media attention after Shepard's murder, has been bolstered with many heartfelt quotes from concerned citizenry, like Jennifer Einhorn of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, who intones that "People's hearts and minds are changed by what they see. To see an immediate counter to both the rhetoric we're hearing in these [anti-homosexual] ads-and to every single act of violence directed specifically at lesbians and gay men-would really speak to leadership, and we really need that. We need a hate crime bill and hate crime laws." However consciousness-raising the Hate Crime laws may be, no one cares to try to explain them in terms commonly associated with justifying criminal legislation.

     Would Hate Crimes laws serve as a deterrent? Doubtful. If crimes such as aggravated robbery, kidnapping with the intent to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim, and first degree murder-the other criminal laws broken by the perpetrators in the Shepard case-do not serve to deter assailants, would a layer of vanilla icing that Hate Crimes would provide, assuming the assailants understood the law? Contrary to a belief voiced by vocal members of the Wyoming bandwagoneers, a Hate Crime law would not have spared Matthew Shepard's life nor will it prevent assaults. In the flashpoint of a tense situation, whether between a pair of rednecks and a homosexual or a pair of rednecks and another pair of rednecks, the thought of criminal prosecution or getting caught does not get placed on the scales. Deterrence only works with premeditated crimes, not often crimes of opportunity nor in the heat of passion.

     Rejecting deterrence, we are left with retribution as the justification for Hate Crimes legislation. Herein lies the real driving force behind the proponents. The addition five years of jail time and ten thousand dollars fine (as is levied in Massachusetts) ought to teach them. Of course, in the case of Shepard, where the assailants have almost lost the right to their "alleged" and the state chemist is percolating a double dose of Lethal Injector for after their murder conviction, five extra years and ten thousand dollars won't mean much.

     In the case of assault, however, the five years and ten thousand dollars would be an extra set of lashings. But are they just lashings? A punishment should fit a crime, and assaulting another person should carry a standard penalty. I cannot justify a Hate Crime law using the fiancee/mother method. I cannot believe that someone assaulting my fiancee or my mother is less of a criminal than someone assaulting a gay man. Someone who assaults a stranger for not liking the way the victim looks deserves no less punishment than the worst our society can offer. To establish a second tier of punishment for motivation not only asks a jury to ascertain the evils that lurk in a person's mind to a greater degree than ever before, but also establishes this hierarchy of bad assaults and worse crimes based not upon the action, but upon the membership of the victim in a protected class.

     Not only do Hate Crime laws serve as poor deterrents and unjust retribution, but they anasthesize and excite the national conscience like a crystal meth. Bill Clinton tangentally nipped at the root of the problem with this oft-quoted sound bite: "Americans will once again search their hearts and do what they can to reduce their own fear and anxiety and anger at people who are different. And I hope that Congress will pass the hate-crime legislation." Whereas the murder of Matthew Shepard serves as a good jumping-off point for whatever dim reflection most people can muster, Hate Crime legislation provides a handy judgmental cop-out.

     Hate crimes, attacks upon victims because of their class, sexual orientation, race, et cetera, do not occur in a vacuum. Signs and steps before the point of violence occur, and smaller slights occur too frequently too bother with an anecdote. If tolerance of other races, creeds, et al is to be made the social norm, then the tolerance of those who would break that social norm must end. Not only must we Americans search our hearts and seek to reduce our fear, but we must express our disdain and moral sanction whenever the kindly old neighbor calls young black men "buck niggers." Whenever a friend excludes one of "Them" (whichever Them it is) from a party, we should point the breaking of the more to the friend and not go to the gathering.

     Hate Crime legislation, however, would remove the onus of enforcement from the rest of us and make it The Government's job. We don't have to speak up, to put ourselves at the risk, not often of physical danger, but of no longer being of the "Us" that is not "Them" and the accompanying social stigma. We can laugh politely at the older businessman's humor of men named Bruce and our lives will flow much easier. No one is deterred from foolish bigotry. The government will step in if necessary to enforce the American dream. But when the government steps in, society and special groups exact their unjust retribution only after Matthew Shepard has been lashed to a post in forty degree weather for eighteen hours.