I agree that hate based on ignorance and prejudice is a Bad Thing. Hating people, however, is not a criminal act -- nor should it be. Initiating aggression -- whatever the motives -- already is criminal. If the penalties for violence are not enough to instill fear of punishment, then that needs to be fixed. I reject your assumption that "something has to be done…" if you are referring to the act of hating (as opposed to violence).

Even ignoring the thought police aspect, this new category of crime based on perceptions of the motive (or passion) of the criminal is fraught with unfairness. Take your own example: "But if the black man beats up the white, just because he's white, then you have a hate crime." Apparently not -- as practiced in the real world of law enforcement and the courts. If you can give me one example of a minority of any kind being convicted of a hate crime, I'll withdraw this argument. It may happen eventually. If it does, it will be headline material because it will go against a working assumption, namely that only the majority perform hate crimes.

My "better idea" wouldn't miraculously end hate motivated crimes, but it would have to help: a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system. The basis of that overhaul is fairly well covered in the middle sections of Mislaid American Rights. In a nutshell, if resources were concentrated on people who initiate aggression and ways to prevent it, rather than those who commit so-called "victimless crimes", the U.S. wouldn't be victimizing its own citizens with the second-highest incarceration rate in the world. Prison space would be freed up for dangerous criminals. (Another related editorial: Justice of the Beast).

Creating a new type of crime which, in practice, is enforced only against certain classes people is not the appropriate way to send any kind of message -- particularly if the message is supposed to fight prejudice.

ive always been unhappy with the way that our society latches on to certian issues, bleeds them dry, and then tells our government that something should be done "oh, wont you please do something about _______" (insert any issue such as guns, drugs, rape, rainforest, television, internet, sex, hate, child labor, etc.) this is not to say that these are not problems that occur in our world. the problem lies in the way that politicians deal with such issues.
in todays system of media, sensational issues are introduced by the news industry. next they are picked up by talk shows, magazines, and activist groups. fund raisers are organized, and everyone is told they are evil if they dont do something. as a result, politicians milk the issues, make a stance, and quilkly make new legislation in order to get votes for next term. this all happens so fast that no one realizes the implications of what they do, because they have already done it. the quick fix is a staple for politicians, because its always cutting edge, and its the angle that the other guy isnt good enough to see. so everyone bites, votes, and feels good because they voted for "the guy who finaly did something about _____"
this is fine for all, untill all the things they did so quickly, slowly catch up. so lets outlaw hate, because im running for president in the next election. thank you for your time in reading my ramblings, and for speaking out. feel free to email me- monkeyhombre@aol.com mike phalan

Your article on Hate Crimes makes total sense. I had just received an e mail petition in support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act when I decided to do a little research and found your site. As a member of PFlag (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) I detest what is happening to gays in the name of God, or hate, or whatever and yet I very much fear the thought policing that in inherent in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If we enforce present laws the guilty will be penalized without such a terrible intrusion into the minds of our citizens.

Hey,

I agree completey with your position on hate crimes, and I have been put in a position to convince some people of our position. I am a Junior on the debate team at Parkland High School in Allentown, Pa, and I am on the negative side of a resolution stating that the feds should enact hate crime legislation. Any additional information you could provide me with would help me greatly with my speech and convincing the public of our position on the hideous implications of hate crime. If not, thanks for making a great site!

Thanks again,

M

su400@aol.com

I agree with your "thought police" comments. Legislators trying to push through hate crime bills are simply trying respond to a culture of impatience. Americans are used to getting what they want when they want it. And they want people to stop being prejudiced, bigoted and intolerant right now. Americans of all segments of society have equality by law, and certain people are upset that hate-filled people haven't fallen in line. Give it time, and look around -- we have made progress. As a journalist who has been in many schools and seen children interact, the up-and-coming generation will be far more tolerant of blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities. We must also learn the difference between lifestyle choices and race. Simple? Of course it is, but some people deliberately blur the line. The best example is homosexuality. Some people are born black, and there is nothing they can do about it. Homosexuals claim that they were born gay, but there is something they can do about it, which makes it a choice. Some people claim to be born with a short temper, but we expect them to do something to rein in those feelings. Now I do not hate homosexuals, but I can accept them as a co-worker, neighbor, etc. without accepting their lifestyle. Those who try to blur the line say that all lifestyles are equal, but they are wrong. Some lifestyles are simply wrong. Unfortunately, perpetrators of hate crimes are only creating martyrs that strengthen the homosexual cause. Debate brings health to a civilized society, and only one by one can we open eyes and change hearts.

I found the essay on hate crime premise very intereseting, in fact I based my final exam paper on the topic, but the reason I emailed you is to inform that some of the links in the hate essay are outdated like Eric Randolph and Senator Joseph Bidden. Just thought you would like to know.

Thank you for letting us know about the links, but I think I'll leave them as-is, if only to remind us that we can't trust domains ending with .gov to leave their content in place like sane web publishers do.

You insulent fools! Your web site is a disgrace. Your articles are tacky and unfounded. Here I am trying to find sites with statistics on hate crimes, and different cases of hate crimes, and you bastards have the balls to put out such filth? I know that I sound angry, but in truth, I am calm. You see, it is people like you that need an education on the matters of hate crimes. Look, I don't know what goes through peoples minds when they mame and kill people because they look or act a certain way, all I do know is that it is disgusting, that site of yours. The sickest thing of it all is that it seems like your saying that hate crimes are lesser because the people committing them see it as a vaccination and not a crime against society!

Assuming that by 'insulent' you mean insolent (presumptuous, insulting, arrogant, rude, disrespectful, impertinent), we plead guilty. Other than that, the weight of your rebuttal approaches zero.

I enjoyed your article on hate crimes. I agree with your premise that hate crimes are ridiculous. However, please note that a crime is not a violation of rights. I may be nitpicking on that issue, but most crimes derive from the common law of England which goes back much further than the concept of personal rights, at least in the political/judicial/law enforcement realm.

More importantly, crimes are already cranked up for the thought processes behind committing the act. Murder is a state crime, and each state does it a little bit differently. There are 3 basic types of murder, each with its own "mental state." Run of the mill murder is premeditated. Voluntary manslaughter is a "heat of passion" killing (often used when a defendant kills an adultering spouse caught in the act). The third type is a killing through gross negligence, or failure to conform to society's view of safe actions. Notice the act is the same, ie killing, but the mental state is different. Likewise, the time in prison is different, with the 1st aforementioned getting the longest term, and the 3rd getting the shortest. I've probably oversimplified the whole murder/mental state thing, but I believe you get my point.

Don't get me wrong, I am not pro-legislation. I just wanted to point out a few insignificant flaws in an otherwise brilliant article.

The reason I am against hate crimes is similar to the views expressed in your article. If I hate you because of your clothes, normal crime. But if I hate you for your skin etc, aggravated crime. The hate can be just as vile, but the crime is defined differently by the state. That is my problem. If you notice above, the differing types of murder involve differing degrees of guilt based on how the state views the mental process. 1st one is an evilly planned deed. The 2nd is basically losing your cool in a fatal manner, and the 3rd is simply a deadly mistake.

By punishing me for my hate, the state seeks to eliminate that hate. However, why is any hate worse than any other. Therein lies my problem. IMO hate is already punished under the current laws. No hate is better or worse than any other.

Further, the prosecution often takes a statute such as a hate crime and tries to expand it beyond it's purpose. For example, if we get into a fist fight, and I call you a racial slur, the prosecution can properly charge me with a hate crime, even if the fight involved a run of the mill disagreement. Proof of me uttering the racial slur will get my sentence enhanced. The prosecution can and often does stretch aggravating circumstances to unfairly punish someone who committed a lesser crime. Thus, I am not really being punished additionally for my mental state but for my interjection. If we had already both punched and kicked each other over who likes which ball team, and then I call you a little "slur", I did not fight because of hate. Yet still I get time tacked on. That's wrong.

I could probably ramble on endlessly about what a huge scam most legislation is, so I will release you from my rant. Keep up the good work.

-Larry

I HAVE BEEN IN A HATE CRIME,my( x ) boyfriend ,mental curelty to me in front of the whole state,and made a joke out of me all over this state,and braged to every body,mainley to the police dept in the city of ind.ca.,and they went along with him,robed 2 cars,2 dump trucks,diamonds, my business,and business license,for construction,35 years i work ,and lost it all to him,i bought and paid for them long before i ever knew him he keep my trucks and the police would not get then back,he does police towing for them,with haddick tow.,so he is in good with police , (OJ ) IN THE WHITE )HE FOLLOWERS ME,and tell the people not to hire me,sinse i meet him,people hate me,for no reason,they tell he tells them all kinds direty about me,and not to use me,he destroyed me on purposly,he told all kinds of lies,and took all my construction equipment,so i cant work,i had contracts for 1 year for my trucks,and he would not give my trucks,you know in twinty five years i have a lot of cliants,now i dont have one,he took over my company,and i dident even know,and money.he totaly destroyed me on purpos, just ask anybody in ca,he told every body i had 2 names,so they would think im a cheat,but i had my son out of wed lock-so i took my son;s father last name, for 35 years,and thats no crime,that it,

I can't even begin to express how sad your email was to read. Oh, here comes more...

violence against women,no work,cival rights,malice and mental curlity ,by keeping my work trucks,so i could not work,and i cant by a job,,i have been in construction for 25 years, no marks on my lic,im a general const,,trucking,moving equipment,hauling asphalt, i have all my own equipment,my (X ) boyfriend ) blacken my name all over this state,he told people not to hire me,he would follow me every day,till he blacken my name,keep my trucks,i bought my equipment ,long befor i ever know him,he robed my things,embezzled,them,cars,and trucks,diamonds,business,and money,he even forged my (bk ) AND LEGAL PAPERS,AND THE LAW HELPED HIM., 2 TO 3 YEARS I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET MY THINGS BACK,,AND HE BY'S MY ATTORNEY;S,ROOLS ROYCE,DUMPTRUCKS,JAG,CARS,WITH MY TITLE IN MY HAND,he tells people im crazy,he and other people took my company over,with the law,i need help to look in to this,please he sent me brook.ca.

Hello,
With reference to material contained on your web site: unquietmind.com/hate_crime.html :

I think you have listed the wrong assumptions used to justify hate crime legislation.

Here are yours:

Assumption One: Crimes are either more or less serious, depending on the thoughts and feelings of those who commit them.
Assumption Two: Government should be able to penalize citizens for how they think.

Rather, would you consider the following:

Assumption one: Crimes committed against certain people may be weighted heavier than crimes against other people. Case in point: penalties for killing on duty police officers should be weighted heavier than for killing others. This is because the police are a symbol of the law, in our society, and they are acting on duty to preserve the coherence of our society.

Just as people kill police officers in the line of duty simply for their being police and not for reasons related to who they are as individuals, some people target individuals of minority background ( for instance) not because of anything that they have done to them personally. The relative similarity of motive, I believe, warrants additional punishment.

Assumption two: an attack on an entire group of people ( such as the daubing of hateful symbols on a house of worship) or a random attack on an individual with the expressed sentiment of hate based on that person's being in a particular class of individuals are the equivalent of domestic terrorism. Terrorism, because it threatens more than just the particular victim, deserves to be punished severely. Society that does not protect itself against terrorism does not adequately protect its citizens.

Assumption three: Actions rather than thoughts call forth a response from law enforcement. While certain feelings and sentiments may be dispicable, thoughts alone cannot and should not be punished. The clearest of all hate crimes are those in which the action can be shown to be the result of some manifestation of bias toward a class of individuals.

There may well be cases in which the term hate crime has been used too loosely. But I think that the willingness to do violence or to terrorize people simply because they may be different than other people, in one respect or another, should be a serious offense. Therefore I feel that hate crime legislation and enforcement are warranted.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Mark Finkelstein
Des Moines, Iowa

I Recognized you had ceased keeping a guestbook but I thought the content of your page so interesting I had to write something.

Since I am male, white, an engineer and approaching 50 (fast!) I probably have absolutely no understanding as to the underlying thought process of those who desire implementing hate crime legislation. But my general comment is this -

Isn't the edifice of the law supposed to protect all equally against mistreatment by individuals, governments or companies. Thus when special punishment is imposed on someone because of how they felt about another, isn't the purpose of the law subverted?

I must be simple minded, but if a person is assaulted, cheated, murdered or treated in a way that their "legal" rights are infringed, why shouldn't we simply expect the law to act uniformly for everyone. (I recognize the historical problem with ensuring this, but that is a matter of enforcement, not creating special categories of crime.) If a crime of robbery is caused by hatred of the person (or his race, gender or sexual orientation), or because the criminal simply needed some dough, wouldn't the consistency of punishment for both criminals send the clear message that both the hatered (which ignited the criminal behavior), and the act of robbery itself are both wrong before the law, and thus diminish both?

(It may not diminish the hatred, but should reduce its criminal results.) For those who say that is not enough, your argument about trying to get inside people's head comes into play. I believe that over the long term, attempts at thought control have lousy general results. Having a legal overlay that says ones actions are under the control of the law is much more important.

I recall reading several histories about the feudal age where, depending on the crime, the punishment varied as to whether the inflictor of the crime and the receiver of the offense was a slave, serf, merchant and knight. I'm not very bright, but it seems that hate crime legislation is heading us back to those glorious days.

I suppose that fulfills the lyrics of a song I once heard - "whatever is old will be new again" - you just have to wait long enough for it.

I've spent the past few hours reading the essays on your site, and I've found them all to be well-written and interesting. I have a question, however, about the issues you raise in the piece "Hate Crime Premise." In the essay, you write that hate crime legislation is wrong because it is legislation of thought. This sounds valid. However, how is this different from other aspects of criminal law in which the motives of the aggressor are taken into account? We have different levels of punishment for homicide: murder with forethought and malice, murder in the heat of passion, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. Wouldn't hate crime legislation simply be adding another level to the hierarchy of murder charges?

Thanks for writing this essay; you've prompted me to think more carefully about my position in this matter.

I am the victim of hate crimes, but not in the sense as legally defined. I was accused of and charged with two counts of making death threats by my former employer, the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (St. Paul Police Department case numbers 97-031459 and 99-156743). Although current law does not recognize these attacks as hate crimes, they are nevertheless committed with spite, revenge, and a vindictive desire to prevent me from reporting violations of Federal laws and Federal regulations. The hearts of these individuals are filled to capacity with hate just as much as Hitler's was when he initiated his campaign to wipe out a whole race of people he considered inferior.

My case, unfortunately is not unique to this employer's mistreatment of employees who have the intestinal fortitude to report shady dealings when they uncover them. Many honest, hardworking individuals careers and lives have been destroyed as a direct result of the abuses suffered at the hands of these self-appointed and self-righteous superior beings. I am aware of two individuals who took their lives due to feelings of abandonment and worthlessness inflicted upon them by superiors. One of the victims was a section chief and the other was a division chief, which clearly indicates that anyone on any level of the chain-of-command is subject to the wickedness of those who view themselves to be above all others.

Paul Streff

Last night my husband and I got into a huge argument over this whole hate crime debate. I am so exited that I found your site. I've printed your article for him to read. It states my point so profoundly. I tried to get him to understand my views by asking him ... if I were to be raped because my rapist thought I was a hot looking babe, and my black friend was raped because her rapist hated black women, should her rapist get a longer sentence than mine? Do you think in the middle of that horrible act I would give a damn if the rapist hated me or not? I am ashamed to admit my husband still wouldn't give in to my way of thinking. He should be punished for his backward thoughts about this issue!

dear the essayist,
your libertarian approach to hate crimes is refreshing yet lacking in moral appetite. Thought crimes, as you so eloquently dubbed thoughts of prejudice, are so common as to be considered everyday hat for many individuals. Many of us believe that if no one ever knows what horrors our mind manifests against certain groups we will never be called racist, sexist, or homophobic. And this is true. If one allows these obviously stone age ideas to hurt another, then we are permitting hate. Subject: agree
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:45:08 -0800
From: "PAUL JENNE" <p.jenne@worldnet.att.net>

i agree that hate crime's as sutch are nothing more than an effort by the status quo pig's to stop free thought and speach [ and spelling ] but as long as the status quo pig's are in power what can be done , maybe im a dim bulb but i have never understood how if a white person get's in a fight with a black and in the process of the fight call's the black a name that that make's it a worse crime than simply assalt , and have any black's or other minority's ever been prosecuted for HATE crime's against white people , like your site keep up the good work, free speach and thought forever.