It's interesting, if I'm walking in the park with my wife and someone makes an unwanted advance at my wife and I deck him, I get charged with assault. If he makes an advance on me and I deck him, I get charged with a hate crime. Same offense, same outcome, different charge.
Therein lies the problem with hate crimes legislation. It forces us to get 'inside the head' of the perpetrator, which is a very dangerous place to tread.
We have to ask what the objective of a suggested hate crimes bill is. Is it to increase the punishment for a hate crime? Or is it to make us feel better that we are doing something' to stop something despicable? The way I see it, the type of small-minded idiot who would commit a hate crime isn't going to be dissuaded by a law that makes it illegal. If the simple fact that it is illegal were a deterrent, the laws against murder and assault would have prevented the crime in the first place.
I understand that we want to demonstrate our concern by passing a law, but at what cost. As I said, hate crime laws require us to get 'inside the head' of the criminal. I'm not sure that a bigot's head is worth getting into. Why create martyrs for the other idiots to rally around.
We need to enforce the laws we have equally, no matter who the victim or the criminal. I will not argue that frequently the laws are not enforced equally, particularly with regard to minorities. Rather than enacting new laws, however, lets ensure that everyone gets equal protection under the laws we now have. In the long run it will go much further in promoting trust and more importantly, justice for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment