Start By Eliminating This Category Of Crime

Under federal law, and the laws of many states, anyone accused of a crime may be charged with an additional offense and receive a longer jail sentence if a motive related to "hate" is added to the basic charge. This can happen if issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category are suspected as a factor motivating the actual crime (e.g., murder, kidnapping or whatever).

This kind of law is bad for society for many reasons. As if being accused of a real crime is not bad enough, hate crime statues make things much worse. Many others and I believe all hate crime legislation should be revoked. I have at least seven objections to hate crime statues.

1. They could restrict free speech. 
    
2. They criminalize thought, which is usually impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt if denied by the "offender." Thoughts cannot be determined accurately, so it is preposterous to punish a crime more or less because "hate" might have motivated it. 
    
3. Let's say, just to make a point, I hate Visigoths. Should I be punished extra for this if I am prosecuted for snatching a purse from a stranger if she just so happens to have been of the Visigoth persuasion? Ask yourself: What kind of bonus sentence under a hate statue might YOU be at risk. Nobody's perfect - we all have some disdain for somebody or other, based on our experiences, struggle though we may to overcome such things. 
    
4. They are arbitrary. How can a prosecutor fairly punish some kinds of hatred based on some characteristics and not others? For example, I could be punished more severely if I streaked naked during a church service but not at a gathering of the NRA. This suggests certain characteristics are more valued than others - who should make such judgments? Why allow anyone at all the power to do so? Should we not try to discourage stereotypes and promote dignity for all segments of the population? They are so unnecessary. Crimes are already punished. Let consequences be appropriate to the crime committed, not the motive attributed to the crime. 
    
5. They risk criminalizing what some religious fundamentalists call "blasphemy," speech offensive to their unique sensibilities. There is a serious move within the United Nations to punish hate, defined simply as "defaming" religion. This would make it difficult to speak freely about matters of faith and reason. Many authors (e.g., Harris, Dawkins, even Ardell!) could be prosecuted in certain jurisdictions. Ron Lindsey asked, "If Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens bumps into a Muslim on a subway, should he have to worry about being accused of an assault motivated by hatred of Islam?" (See Ronald Lindsay, "Freedom of Thought," Free Inquiry Magazine, February / March 2009, Volume 29 Number 2.) 
    
6. Punishing for thoughts or attributed motives gives juries/judges too much discretion, thus inviting a harvest of unintended consequences. Allegations can come from anywhere. Have we forgotten the Salem witch trials? Do you want to open yourself to being questioned about your personal preferences of one kind or another (friends, music, reading, etc.) by inquisitors looking into your motives, should you be accused of an offense? It can happen, you know. The innocent are sometimes accused through no fault of his or her own. 
    
7. Hate crimes are a special threat to minorities. If you hold beliefs, memberships or otherwise seem a bit out of the mainstream, this very fact might be used against you to show bad intent (i.e., "hate".)

Naturally, I am opposed to prejudice and incivility toward everyone, no matter the person's race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. "Be fair to everyone," I say. I am also very fond of freedom of speech.

Let's keep crimes based on actions, not purported motives or feelings. As Lindsey noted, let's try to "change people's thinking—not by punishing them for what they are thinking. Freedom of thought is meaningless unless it encompasses the freedom to have thoughts considered unacceptable by others."

Be well. Your thoughts?

 Start By Eliminating This Category Of Crime

Under federal law, and the laws of many states, anyone accused of a crime may be charged with an additional offense and receive a longer jail sentence if a motive related to "hate" is added to the basic charge. This can happen if issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category are suspected as a factor motivating the actual crime (e.g., murder, kidnapping or whatever).

This kind of law is bad for society for many reasons. As if being accused of a real crime is not bad enough, hate crime statues make things much worse. Many others and I believe all hate crime legislation should be revoked. I have at least seven objections to hate crime statues.

1. They could restrict free speech. 
    
2. They criminalize thought, which is usually impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt if denied by the "offender." Thoughts cannot be determined accurately, so it is preposterous to punish a crime more or less because "hate" might have motivated it. 
    
3. Let's say, just to make a point, I hate Visigoths. Should I be punished extra for this if I am prosecuted for snatching a purse from a stranger if she just so happens to have been of the Visigoth persuasion? Ask yourself: What kind of bonus sentence under a hate statue might YOU be at risk. Nobody's perfect - we all have some disdain for somebody or other, based on our experiences, struggle though we may to overcome such things. 
    
4. They are arbitrary. How can a prosecutor fairly punish some kinds of hatred based on some characteristics and not others? For example, I could be punished more severely if I streaked naked during a church service but not at a gathering of the NRA. This suggests certain characteristics are more valued than others - who should make such judgments? Why allow anyone at all the power to do so? Should we not try to discourage stereotypes and promote dignity for all segments of the population? They are so unnecessary. Crimes are already punished. Let consequences be appropriate to the crime committed, not the motive attributed to the crime. 
    
5. They risk criminalizing what some religious fundamentalists call "blasphemy," speech offensive to their unique sensibilities. There is a serious move within the United Nations to punish hate, defined simply as "defaming" religion. This would make it difficult to speak freely about matters of faith and reason. Many authors (e.g., Harris, Dawkins, even Ardell!) could be prosecuted in certain jurisdictions. Ron Lindsey asked, "If Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens bumps into a Muslim on a subway, should he have to worry about being accused of an assault motivated by hatred of Islam?" (See Ronald Lindsay, "Freedom of Thought," Free Inquiry Magazine, February / March 2009, Volume 29 Number 2.) 
    
6. Punishing for thoughts or attributed motives gives juries/judges too much discretion, thus inviting a harvest of unintended consequences. Allegations can come from anywhere. Have we forgotten the Salem witch trials? Do you want to open yourself to being questioned about your personal preferences of one kind or another (friends, music, reading, etc.) by inquisitors looking into your motives, should you be accused of an offense? It can happen, you know. The innocent are sometimes accused through no fault of his or her own. 
    
7. Hate crimes are a special threat to minorities. If you hold beliefs, memberships or otherwise seem a bit out of the mainstream, this very fact might be used against you to show bad intent (i.e., "hate".)

Naturally, I am opposed to prejudice and incivility toward everyone, no matter the person's race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. "Be fair to everyone," I say. I am also very fond of freedom of speech.

Let's keep crimes based on actions, not purported motives or feelings. As Lindsey noted, let's try to "change people's thinking—not by punishing them for what they are thinking. Freedom of thought is meaningless unless it encompasses the freedom to have thoughts considered unacceptable by others."

Be well. Your thoughts?