Hate Crime Laws

I have been anti-Hate-Crime-Laws since long before various Christian Fundamentalist organizations started up their crusade, and I'll state that at the outset. I am also not ashamed of my stance, politically correct, politically incorrect, or other. But I don't want people to think that I'm against Hate Crime Laws because I want to beat up minorities.

The criticism often leveled at at Hate Crime Laws is that they are entirely based on motive, which shouldn't have anything to do with sentencing. Sadly, this is completely bogus. Motive is one of the most important parts of sentencing, whether it be for hate crimes or for straight-up garden-variety murder. It shouldn't play a part in guilt or innocence: wishing that a person was dead is not the same thing as killing that person. But it often does: wishing a person was dead is probably not something a defendant would like to come out in a trial where that defendant is accused of murdering said person.

At the end of the day, I'm against Hate Crime Laws because I feel that they use motivation in an inappropriate way, a way which is unconstitutional (if you don't live in the US, feel free to disregard everything I say on the subject, because I don't know enough about everyone else's can of worms to open it). I am also, for the record, against the division of murder into First, Second, and etc. degrees. I am not against judging that accidental death is a different crime from willful death. Nor am I against making divisions as an aid to sentencing for judges and juries, as long as said divisions respect mandated maximum sentences for the crime considered.

What the hell do I mean? Well, at the moment motive is used in one of several ways. It can be used to determine with which crime a criminal (well, not technically a criminal, but rather a defendant) is charged. The difference between First Degree Murder (which, by the way, is not universal between states, nor do all states have such a division) and Second Degree Murder is usually motive-based (although not always, and this is another problem with the system: it's not very hard and fast). Likewise, some states explicitly charge the accused with Hate Crimes based on the prosecutor's take on the defendant's motive.

Secondly, sometimes motivation is used purely in sentencing. The accused is charged with murder, found guilty, and then whatever sentencing process is used is informed by the criminal's motivation. There can be guidelines for this. The only problem I have with this system when used exactly as stated above is that it too isn't hard and fast.

The system often isn't exactly as described, and in many cases Hate Crime Laws allow a completely untried offense, that of Hate Crime, to be added to the sentence by the sentencing body or official. This means that a murderer can be found guilty of murder without motivation ever being considered in the trial, and the prosecution can then present evidence to the judge showing that the crime was also a Hate Crime. The judge can then add additional time to the sentence, even to the point where the sentence exceeds the mandated maximum. This isn't fair at all and should be stopped.

Our justice system is based on complicated systems, and to enumerate the exact reasons I have problems with Hate Crime Laws would take forever. Also, each state, and probably each judicial district, is slightly different because of the aforementioned complicated systems. But rather than say that motivation shouldn't be a factor in the criminal proceedings, I would just like to say that it should not be the deciding factor in guilt or innocence, which Hate Crime Laws threaten to make it.

A criminal is guilty or innocent based on their actions. They may be more culpable because of their motives, but whether they actually committed the crime should be important in reasonable doubt. They don't ask the jury to decide whether they think a criminal could have done it, or whether they think the criminal wanted to do it. They are asked to decide if they think, beyond reasonable doubt, that the criminal did it.

Unfortunately, criminal law isn't simple, hard, or fast. And me being against something on hard and fast grounds probably isn't going to change anything. After all, they don't pay lawyers (well, some lawyers) the big bucks for their fashion sense.