"Hate Crimes" should not be a factor in the administration of justice

The focus of my position will be on the concept of hate crimes, and hate crime legislation and their compatibility with our concept of a justice system. Hate crime is defined by Wiki as: “In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]”Regardless of the motivation, the crime is of equal harm to society at large: Essentially by deeming the same crime with different standards depending on the motivation you are saying that the crime is more okay in one light than in another light. 1. My brother was killed because he was gay. 2. My brother was killed during a robbery. Hate crime legislation says that it’s more okay to kill for purposes of robbery, than in an attack based on hate. In both cases we want society to be protected by the murder, and in both cases the threat to society is real. We certainly do not want the victim of one to be deemed differently than the other. Society doesn’t need to be protected more from hate based crimes than non hate based crimes; as it is in the best interest of society to be protected from the crime regardless of the motive behind it. To the family of someone who is killed by a drug addict trying to maintain his habit, are they even slightly comforted by the fact that it wasn’t hate based? Of course not. Is society at lesser risk by those who are killing to support their drug habit versus those who are killing due to hate? No, the risk is equal, or the behavior of killing is equal. External to justice: Essentially the objective of hate crime legislation is extra judicial, that is outside of the realm of what the function of what our judiciary is responsible. Hate crime's objective is external, with the intention of shaping a society that conforms to the ideals that motivate hate crime legislation. The intentions may (or might not) be admirable, but they are clearly outside the realm of our criminal justice system’s intended purpose, i.e. to provide a fair trial for a specific crime.Politicization: When we deem a class of person with added protection, particularly under a politically charged environment, we run the risk of losing “equal protection under the law”[2]. Responsibility of the criminal justice system is to provide a fair trial for the defendant in their accused crime. It does not involve the agenda of politicians, or even society at large, but rather the specific crime to the specific law that was violated. Hate crime legislation adds an additional layer of almost always politically motivated laws to be sorted out by judges and juries. It is absurd to say that a person is guilty of both killing someone and hating them because they are black. We don’t try someone for what they are thinking, but rather for the behavior that results. I don’t deny that premeditation is a component of the definition of the crime, but the exact profile of that premeditation is not on trial. Premeditation is defined as: “The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.”[3] Thought Crime: We should keep in mind that this sort of legislation is different from standard criminal laws where we are strictly concerned with the behavior of individuals in society, not what they are thinking. By convicting someone of a crime, and then adding to it the additional crime of hate, we are now legislating prohibition of thought. Combined with the politicization of the particular protection, we speak of, the net result is a governmental prohibition of a type of thinking subject to the winds of political change.Interpretational difficulties: If I hate my neighbor for whatever reason, and end up hurting him – is that a hate crime? According to the legislation it would only be if he were of a minority group as mentioned in the definition, but if I were to hate him for being part of the majority; let’s say he was straight, and I am gay, and I killed him because he was straight, does the hate crime legislation apply? Strictly speaking, no. However the principle of the legislation is the same in the hatred of a class, but the majority is not a protected class. By the same token, if he hurt me because he hated me, but not because I am gay, but because my dog uses his lawn as a toilet – is that hate crime? If he killed me, could a lawyer easily attribute the crime toward his (not so) obvious hatred of gays, and the defendant be given the added penalty of hate? I ask those who are reading this debate to carefully consider the justice system, and what role something like “hate crime legislation” would and could play in its administration. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.legal-explanations.com...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...