Thought Police Hate-Crime Laws Are Misguided

Thought Police Hate-Crime Laws Are Misguided *** Six years into his presidency, George Bush has finally threatened to veto something that truly deserves to be extinguished. Unlike anti-torture legislation, funding of stem cell research and a timeline for disengaging from Iraq -- all of which Bush has vetoed or threatened to -- a proposal to expand the reach of federal hate crime law merits his opposition.

The measure passed the House Thursday and would extend federal hate-crime protection to those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, an expansion of the list of protected victims that now includes those who suffer bias-based violence because of their race, religion or nationality. If it becomes law, the measure would make it easier for federal law-enforcement officials to get involved in hate-crime investigations and apply harsher sentencing guidelines to those convicted.

The problem is not with expanding the number of victim categories; it is with the very concept of “hate crimes.” Hate crimes punish people for what they think, not for what they do, and the concept of criminalizing certain ugly thoughts runs counter to the principles of a society that reveres freedom of thought, speech and conscience.

Some of the more hyperbolic critics of this legislation complain that it amounts to an attempt to silence social conservatives. For example, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the measure would “muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” That's nonsense: Only those who acted on their bigotry by committing violent crimes against protected groups would be affected.

But just because some of the criticism is exaggerated doesn't mean all of it is invalid. Dobson and like-minded folks would remain free to express their opinions, but hate crime legislation still threatens to punish people for holding bad thoughts. If John Doe assaults a heterosexual for any of the normal variety of criminal reasons, he generally need not fear the involvement of the federal government or the threat of enhanced penalties. But if John Doe assaults a gay person because he hates that person's homosexuality, this legislation threatens to bring the power of the federal government against him and punish him with longer prison sentences. The only difference between the two crimes is what was going on in John Doe's mind, which means that the legislation would punish him for what he was thinking, not for what he did. We believe he should be punished for committing an assault in both cases, and the penalty should be the same regardless of the victim.

Hate-crime legislation also puts prosecutors and juries in the position of having to determine people's motivations, an all-but-impossible task in many cases.

One component of this proposal that has merit would allow the federal government to become involved in cases in which local law enforcement officials have shown indifference to violence committed against people because of their sexuality. Might it not make more sense to determine if an expansion of federal civil rights law would offer the federal government the authority to intervene when locals are insufficiently zealous? That might offer the necessary protection to a still persecuted minority without expanding the scope of a law that mocks the principle that the government has no business telling people what to think.

>>So, if I yell a humiliating remark about someone I’m beating, that’s worse than a cold unemotional attack for no reason on that same person? Sorry, that doesn’t make sense.
So, it’s okay to humiliate, just not in a fight? <<

It does seem crazy doesn’t it.

The only possible justification I can see comes from the history near Atlanta.

There is a county just north of Atlanta that had a sign at border “Nigger, don’t let the sun go down on you in Forsyth county.”

I can see an argument that if the first black person who tried to spend the night in Forsyth county was attacked it would be a form of terrorism, not just an attack on an individual but an attempt to inspire terror in a larger population.

But the risk of misuse of these laws is very, very, high.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.