HATE CRIMES laws are the Marshmallow Peeps of progressive social change. They look nice in the box and taste remarkably syrupy sweet. They have no nutritional or substantive value and seem unmanageably gooey when actually put into use. The Peeps ultimately rot the teeth of those trying to enjoy them, while the hate crimes laws actually cause the effectiveness of those pushing for social change to rot.
The recent assaults in Charlottesville are illustrative of the problems hate crimes laws create. Between Sept. 2001 and January of this year, five assaults took place against nine University students, all of whom were either white or Asian. All nine alleged attackers were black. At the time of arrest, Charlottesville police admitted that race might have factored in the attacks.
Last Thursday, Commonwealth's Attorney David Chapman chose not to bring further charges based on racial animus. The charges would have increased the category of offense charged from a misdemeanor to a felony. In justifying this decision, Chapman stated that "envy, resentment and peer pressure" might have motivated the attacks ("Teens not charged with hate crimes," The Washington Post, March 30).
|
Predictably, Coleman's decision has brought forward a storm of moronic criticism. David Duke, last seen escaping from the fifth circle of hell, has argued that a double standard exists between charging white and black persons with similar hate crimes.
The particular actions of these nine assailants are obviously regrettable and disgusting. More than likely, the Commonwealth's Attorney will make sure that they receive some kind of legitimate punishment. One adult who pled guilty will face one month in jail for his part in the beatings, and the remaining juveniles likely will face substantial criminal punishments.
The primary problem of hate crimes laws is the fact that they do nothing. They do not respond to criminal motivations. In practice, they do not affect most jail sentences. When they are relevant to sentencing, they harm the agendas of those promoting social change.
First, hate crime laws ignore the very basic notion of criminal activity. At their core, most criminal acts involve some degree of hate. The assaults in this case were committed with disrespect for the victims and for society at large. Criminal codes reflect the differences among the types of hate by looking to intent. Somebody who truly intends an action to take place is charged with something like first degree murder. Those who commit bad acts without intending them from the outset often get charged with lesser offenses. The Charlottesville attackers were charged based on the intent that the prosecutor thought they possessed. Saying they were "mean" does little but draw attention to this secondary issue.
Second, hate crimes laws' practical effects on sentencing have to be considered unsubstantial as well. Generally, hate crimes are most obvious in the most egregious situations, like murder. In booking someone for a horrible crime, tacking on a hate crime charge likely matters little to the offender. Executing somebody reflects societal hatred more effectively than tagging him as a hateful individual. In the more moderate range of offenses, like the Charlottesville situation, prosecutors are left with the decision to lodge a hate crime charge. Given the possibility of outraging one political community (white or black victims) or another (white or black supporters of the alleged attackers), most prosecutors will opt for sticking with more conventional charges. The real effect on sentences, therefore, will be minimal.
Moreover, trial judges already have substantial discretion to alter sentences within the traditional offenses. A substantial difference clearly would exist between receiving 10 years and receiving 20 years for the same kind of offense, like a burglary or assault. An adequate trial judge can distinguish bad actors and really obnoxiously bad actors and can adjust sentences accordingly.
Ironically, recognizing a separate kind of offense, the "hate crime," actually undermines those who wish to obtain better respect for certain classes of people. As already mentioned, hate crimes laws do little in the way of actually adding anything to the criminal sentence levied against an offender.
If anything, controversies about hate crimes - like the David Duke fracas - often act as distractions to the truly substantive issues surrounding civil rights debates. To avoid more controversial issues and to appear moderate, a legislator may support a hate crime law and oppose more meaningful legislation. The same could be said with regard to affirmative action and immigration legislation.
To focus these debates on more meaningful topics, hate crimes laws should be dropped from the books. Judges should be trusted to consider bad actions in their sentencing. The diet of social debates might then shift to something more substantial.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 14 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
