Soccer Dad

The problem with hate crimes

A few years ago the great social scientist James Q Wilson wrote an essay about hate crimes. Hate and Punishment. (The article originally appeared in 1999.) The gist of his argument that, legally, motive should make little difference in determining the punishment for a crime.

Suppose there were three men named Furrow, each of whom killed from a different motive. Alfred Furrow shot a letter carrier because he had taken out a life-insurance policy on him and wanted to collect the benefits. Buford Furrow shot one because he disliked people of different ethnic backgrounds. Charles Furrow shot one because he wanted to prove to fellow gang members that he was a tough guy.

Legally, these crimes are identical. That is, they all constitute premeditated murder. Each Furrow not only intended to take a life, he thought through the murder in advance. To prove this in court, a prosecutor must show, usually from inferences based on the defendant's conduct, that the killer deliberated about his actions and acted in accord with those deliberations. The intent of each Furrow was the same.

The result is the same regardless of motive and ...

Hate-crime laws are an effort to make the subjective motive matter. But why should it? Why should hating immigrants be a worse motive than stealing money or earning entree into a criminal gang? The proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 tries to answer that question by saying that "Congress finds" that hate-motivated violence "disrupts the tranquillity and safety of communities and is deeply divisive" and that it is "a relic of slavery." Congress, of course, has no evidence that either of these statements is true. If people killed others in order to gain money or strengthen gangs, as in fact they do, this would affect the safety of communities and would be deeply divisive at least as much as, and probably more than, killing others because of what they look like. And since the hate-crimes bill would impose tougher penalties on murderers who attack people because of their religion, national origin, gender, or disability, as well as their race or color, it cannot be that the law intends to correct the defects of slavery.

(What happens if a robber, in middle of an armed robbery calls his victim nigger or kike or mick? Does that automatically change the robbery into a hate crime?)

And yet the assumption of those who pay attention to hate crimes as a barometer of the health of our society it is blacks who suffer from them the most. Consider the recent good news that the number of hate crimes in Maryland was down in 2005.

Police agencies across Maryland reported 195 hate crimes in 2005 — a noticeable decrease from previous years, according to a recent FBI publication.

That number represents a major drop in the number of hate crimes in Maryland since 1995, when the state experienced 353 such incidents. It’s also a drop from 2004, when police reported 245 hate crimes in Maryland.

So what does the NAACP (or a spokesman) say about this?

“I don’t see this as any great improvement,” Odoms said. “A hundred and ninety-five hate crimes is still 195 hate crimes. And this year it seems like they’re going on a rampage, trying to make up for last year. They’re more visible.”

Odoms pointed to several high-profile hate crimes in the Baltimore metropolitan area in 2006 as evidence that they remain a major problem in Maryland.

This summer vandals chemically burned white supremacist slogans and symbols into eight Ellicott City lawns.

The Baltimore City branch of the NAACP also received a letter filled with white powder in July. The FBI later analyzed the letter and told branch President Marvin “Doc” Cheatham Sr. that it was filled with racial slurs as well as death threats, Cheatham said.

First a little perspective. Maryland has a population of a little more than 5,600,000 and there were 195 hate crimes reported in the state for 2005. In contrast the city of Baltimore that has between 600,000 and 700,000 people had close to 300 murders last year (and every year going back to 2000. The murder rate in the 1990's was even higher.) The majority of those victims are black. And yet the problem facing the NAACP is hate crimes? Not the pedestrian drug crimes?

One problem of the designation of hate crimes is that the definition is used to emphasize a problem that, fortunately, is in decline.

In reporting hate crimes, the assumption is that blacks are the most frequent victims. Numerically, that may be true. However, at the risk of getting involved in comparative victimology, according to the 2005 statistics Jews were twice as likely to be victims of hate crimes as blacks. (There were roughly 3 1/2 times the number of hate crimes directed against blacks as Jews; but Jews are 1/7 the number of blacks in the United States.)

Some of the antisemitimism is overt and rarely does it raise the same sort of outrage as does anti-black racism. On campuses it can be quite outrageous as Candace de Russy reports at the National Review. (h/t Colossus of Rhodey.Hube )

For example, as highlighted by Mal Kline, the University of Pennsylvania Muslim Student Association hosted “Reverend” William W. Baker of the racist and anti-Semitic organization, the Populist Party. Speaking before the Christian Patriot Defense League in Missouri, Baker had earlier voiced “his disgust at traveling to New York City, getting off the plane to meet ‘pushy, belligerent American Jews.’” Penn spent five thousand dollars on the MSA event, where Baker got star billing.

For all the outrage about Trent Lott returning to a prominent role in the Republican Senate hierarchy, there is little outrage of Jim Moran's continued presence in Congress or the continued deference shown to Al Sharpton by the Democratic party and the MSM.

While I am bothered by antisemitism, I also realize that it isn't a large problem. While antisemitic feelings are more prevelant (and in some cases respectable) than I like, for the most part it doesn't lead to action.

It's terrible that prejudice and hate still exist in our open society. Still it's not possible to eradicate them completely. But they are diminishing problem and should be recognized as such. As a society we shun such irrational behavior and refuse to make it acceptable. That's a great accomplishment and should be kept in mind whenever hate crimes are discussed.