Home   News   Schools   Sports   Biz   Opinion   Health   Scitech  Arts   Dining   Movies   Outdoors   Weather   Comics   Archives  NM Jobs Cars Real Estate

          Front Page  opinion  dimond

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Hate Is the Name of the Game in Crime

By Diane Dimond

          Let's talk about hate. Hate crimes to be specific.
        By definition these are crimes perpetrated by someone who targets another based on their race, color, religion or national origin. Congress now seeks to expand the definition of hate crimes to those who attack based on a victim's sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. The goal is to add extra punishment for those convicted under hate crimes statutes.
        Two of America's most recent and widely publicized hate crimes took place within two weeks of each other. On May 31, there was the murder in a Kansas church of a high profile abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. On June 10, security guard Stephen T. Johns lost his life after courageously confronting a madman with a gun who entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and started shooting.
        In both instances the defendants were described as lone-wolf types, obsessed with hatred of particular groups of people. In the church shooting it's alleged that the pro-life suspect hated abortion providers so much he resorted to taking life himself. In the second case, the 88-year-old man behind the gun was said to have long harbored hate for blacks, Jews and other minorities.
        Both were odious crimes to be sure. But why label them hate crimes when we already have strict laws against murder? If convicted, both these men (the grievously wounded Holocaust Museum suspect is still alive as I write this) will go to prison for the rest of their lives. What difference does it make if the title "Hate Crime" is attached to their deadly actions?
        One of the most heinous racially motivated crimes in this country occurred in Jasper, Texas, in 1998. Three white men chained James Byrd Jr., to their pickup truck and dragged him to his death simply because he was black. The trio was tried under a hate crime law. But it didn't matter what statute was applied — the nation couldn't have been more repulsed by their crime.
        Two of the defendants were sentenced to death, the third got life in prison.
        The first hate crimes legislation in America was passed 40 years ago. Yet according to the Southern Poverty Law Center hate groups continue to flourish. The SPLC displays a map of their locations on its Web site. There are 84 in California, 66 in Texas, 56 in Florida, 45 in South Carolina, 40 organized hate groups in New Jersey and Georgia, nearly that many in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri. Does anyone truly believe that the label "Hate Crime" and the additional jail time it tacks on to a sentence deters criminals?
        Where are our priorities in this country? As Congress seems intent on expanding the definition of certain types of crime I'm left thinking it would be more productive to expend energy figuring out how to prevent crime or on how to treat and re-program the criminal offender.
        We've already got plenty of laws on the books to use against those who vandalize property, set fires to homes and churches, intimidate, rob, physically attack, maim or kill people. I think the real answer is the follow-through.
        If someone attacks a gay person, let's prosecute them for assault and demand the judge give the harshest sentence possible. If someone beats a defenseless mentally retarded homeless person, let's convict the suspect of assault with intent to kill and insist the judge pass a sentence denying early release. If a white man attacks an African-American, Hispanic or Asian person because he doesn't like the color of the person's skin or the country they came from, let's send a clear message — via a stiff prison sentence — that we will not tolerate that behavior. That said, why should an attack on a homosexual or a minority be worth more punishment than a similar attack on a regular Joe?
        I hope prosecutors and judges are reading this.
        Hate crime legislation is based on a person's motivation for committing a crime. Declaring there is hate in a person's heart when they act in a criminal fashion seems to be a shaky proposition to me. We should stick to punishing people for what they do — not what we believe they were thinking at the time of the crime.
        The FBI recently stepped up its efforts to ferret out festering extremists with a program called "Operation Vigilant Eagle." It's designed to closely monitor those who run hate filled Internet sites or belong to white supremacy and militia groups. To me, attacking hate at its breeding ground like that makes much better sense than slapping obvious labels on crimes perpetrators commit. Hate is the name of the game when it comes to crime. We don't need a fancy label on it. We need to figure out how to make it socially unacceptable.