The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Hate crime legislation

This is being carried over from a discussion that began in the Atheist Nexus chat room.

So Obama signed a defense bill yesterday that included hate crime legislation regarding sexual orientation.

I'm generally opposed to hate crime legislation, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

I have several objections:

1. Nothing that is a federal hate crime isn't already a state violent crime. It is the creation of a special category of crime that seems unnecessary. I'm open to having my mind changed on this point, possibly on the grounds of societal good, but such grounds would actually have to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

2. One of the common justifications I've heard for legislation is that hate crimes dehumanize the victim and instill fear in the community. Don't all violent crimes dehumanize the victim and instill fear in the community? Why is this a special case?

3. Some of the same problems I have with labeling things as hate speech I have with hate crimes. I don't think we should outlaw discriminatory speech. If we did, you'd be opening up a can of worms. What speech is hate speech becomes up to the popular whim of the society. This is where you start getting things like blasphemy laws.

On the contrary, I can appreciate that we do take motive into account in the legal system. Motive is the difference between murder and self-defense. I recognize that as a weakness in my objection, but I'm not sure how to word it in properly.

I'll end my initial post with an analogy that I think expresses some of my concerns:

Scenario A: I beat up Ray Comfort and take his cash-filled wallet while screaming at him that he's an "idiotic fundie douche" and that anyone who gives him money is a moron.

Scenario B: I beat up a defenseless old lady and take her pension check out of her purse because she's an easy mark.

I understand that both scenarios are immoral and illegal. It is separate from the point that I'm trying to make with this analogy.

Questions:

1. Which of these scenarios (if any) qualify under the laws as hate crimes?
2. Ethically, which is worse under your own personal worldview? Are they equivalent?
3. Which should carry the harshest criminal sentence? Should they be equivalent?

Tags: crime, discrimination, hate

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on November 12, 2009 at 12:25pm

Wow! It looks like this could be a useful tool for enforcing laws that local government refuses to enforce.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on November 12, 2009 at 5:25pm

I never said I was opposed to prosecuting clear cut hate crimes. However, this legislation does pave the way for some ambiguity. In my earlier scenario a strident atheist (A/N member, of course) gets in a barfight with a christian. The state chose to prosecute it as a battery charge, albeit it for an over zealous case analyst for the FBI who decides, after realizing the atheist is very outspoken and anti-christian, that this is a hate crime against the victim because of their religion.

My point is not that The Matthew Shepard Act is inherently bad, but as with the federal drug laws passed during the Reagan era, it leaves a lot of room for people to be excessively sentenced for otherwise mundane criminal activity.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CJ on January 25, 2010 at 4:20pm

One concern I have with some of the arguments I've been seeing with this thread is that it seems that those in favor of limiting hate speech are under the assumption that we are not entirely responsible for our own actions. I am all for publicly denouncing religious leaders that promote violence from the pulpit, or pray for an assassin to kill the president. I do draw the line at prosecution of these people, though, in the case of some violent act occurring that they themselves did not commit.

I guess I draw a distinction between preaching hate and committing a violent act based on that hate. I still believe the person who is ultimately responsible is the person who committed the act itself.