creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
11 Feb 2012
One Priest's Mission

In a day when the words "Catholic" and "priest" often conjure up negative thoughts, I … Read More.

4 Feb 2012
A Super-sized Blunder

I wonder if the National Football Commissioner Roger Goodell knows the information I'm about to tell you. If not,… Read More.

28 Jan 2012
Your Privacy vs. Police Investigations

Back in the Wild West days, law enforcement officers like Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson had few tools to keep … Read More.

Hate Is the Name of the Game in Crime

Share Comment

Let's talk about hate. Hate crimes to be specific.

By definition, these are crimes perpetrated by someone who targets another based on their race, color, religion or national origin. Congress now seeks to expand the definition of hate crimes to those who attack based on a victim's sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. The goal is to add extra punishment for those convicted under hate crimes statutes.

Two of America's most recent and widely publicized hate crimes took place within two weeks of each other. On May 31, there was the murder in a Kansas church of a high-profile abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. On June 10, security guard Stephen T. Johns lost his life after courageously confronting a madman with a gun who entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., and started shooting.

In both instances, the defendants were described as lone-wolf types, obsessed with hatred of particular groups of people. In the church shooting, it's alleged that the pro-life suspect hated abortion providers so much he resorted to taking life himself. In the second case, the 88-year-old man behind the gun was said to have long harbored hate for blacks, Jews and other minorities.

Both were odious crimes, to be sure. But why label them hate crimes when we already have strict laws against murder? If convicted, both these men (the grievously wounded Holocaust Museum suspect is still alive as I write this) will go to prison for the rest of their lives. What difference does it make if the title "Hate Crime" is attached to their deadly actions?

One of the most heinous racially motivated crimes in this country occurred in Jasper, Texas, in 1998. Three white men chained James Byrd Jr., to their pickup truck and dragged him to his death simply because he was black. The trio was tried under a hate-crime law. But it didn't matter what statute was applied — the nation couldn't have been more repulsed by their crime. Two of the defendants were sentenced to death; the third got life in prison.

The first hate-crimes legislation in America was passed 40 years ago. Yet according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate groups continue to flourish. The SPLC displays a map of their locations on its website. There are 84 in California, 66 in Texas, 56 in Florida, 45 in South Carolina, 40 organized hate groups in New Jersey and Georgia, nearly that many in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri.

Does anyone truly believe the label "Hate Crime" and the additional jail time it tacks on to a sentence deters criminals?

Where are our priorities in this country? As Congress seems intent on expanding the definition of certain types of crime, I'm left thinking it would be more productive to expend energy figuring out how to prevent crime or treat and reprogram the criminal offender.

We've already got plenty of laws on the books to use against those who vandalize property, set fires to homes and churches, intimidate, rob, physically attack, maim or kill people. I think the real answer is the follow through.

If someone attacks a gay person, let's prosecute them for assault and demand the judge give the harshest sentence possible. If someone beats a defenseless mentally retarded homeless person, let's convict the suspect of assault with intent to kill and insist the judge pass a sentence denying early release. If a white man attacks an African-American, Hispanic or Asian person because he doesn't like the color of the person's skin or the country they came from, let's send a clear message, via a stiff prison sentence, that we will not tolerate that behavior! That said, why should an attack on a homosexual or a minority be worth more punishment than a similar attack on a regular Joe?

Boy, I hope prosecutors and judges are reading this.

Hate-crime legislation is based on a person's motivation for committing a crime. Declaring there is hate in a person's heart when they act in a criminal fashion seems to be a shaky proposition to me. We should stick to punishing people for what they do — not what we believe they were thinking at the time of the crime.

The FBI recently stepped up its efforts to ferret out festering extremists with a program called "Operation Vigilant Eagle." It's designed to closely monitor those who run hate-filled Internet sites or belong to white supremacy and militia groups. To me, attacking hate at its breeding ground like that makes much better sense than slapping obvious labels on crimes perpetrators commit.

Hate is the name of the game when it comes to crime. We don't need a fancy label on it. We need to figure out how to make it socially unacceptable.

Visit Diane Dimond's official website at www.dianedimond.com for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
I agree completely. What worries me about this type of legislation is that it's necessary to get into the "mind-set" of the criminal. It's about prosecuting motivation, not intent. And if motivation can be illegal why not prosecute the source of that motivation? We would have a jury deciding whether a preacher's words (or anyone's for that matter) could be criminal. Intent and motivation are two different things. Hate crime laws go after someone on the basis of a thought crime, possibly making certain beliefs criminal. A DANGEROUS road to go down!
Comment: #1
Posted by: deane
Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Dianne Dimond asks:"That said, why should an attack on a homosexual or a minority be worth more punishment than a similar attack on a regular Joe?"
The answer is that-- to liberals, some victims are more important than others.
Comment: #2
Posted by: mikecasey
Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:37 AM
HATE CRIMES? do you know what that means? I find you (DIanne) to be one of the most,hypocritical person
in the World.....judgemental....for sure...,factual writer(reporter)whatever you want to call yourself...BS
I will tell you what you are.....A RACIST WANNABE .................WHAT GOES AROUND ,COMES AROUND....
Comment: #3
Posted by: DEBZ
Sat May 1, 2010 11:24 PM
she should talk about hate crimes when she's the racist bitch that attacked Michael Jackson the way she has for the past 17-18 years she is singlehanded in getting Michael addicted to them pain meds
Comment: #4
Posted by: mjlover4life
Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:10 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Diane Dimond
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

19 Feb 2011 Saving Billions Will Hurt

30 Oct 2010 A Mexican Savior or a Sitting Duck?

18 Sep 2010 Stolen Futures