Hate Crime Laws Need To Be Abolished

The whole concept of hate crime laws is troubling. Take the Jena Six case for example. There is quite likely selective prosecution going on in LaSalle Parish. Here’s the pertinent criteria, emphasis added:

In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both “(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent.” Id. at 475 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 1992). The impermissibly discriminatory purpose or motive must imply “that the decision-maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because or, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. The identifiable group is typically a race, religion, or group of persons exercising a constitutional right.” Gutierrez, 990 F.2d at 476 (citations omitted). Selective prosecution claims are evaluated according to ordinary equal protection standards. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d at 938. Similarly, to establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, a defendant must make a “showing that charges of increased severity were filed because the accused exercised a statutory, procedural, or constitutional right in circumstances that give rise to an appearance of vindictiveness.” United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1982).

Why is the motive – determination of which is a soft science at best – a criteria? It should be enough to show statistically that whites are serving less time or not being charged at all for the same crimes when all other factors (such as criminal history, etc.) are equal. Is it more wrong to stop black people from voting than it is to stop white people from voting? How about latinos, or Asians? Fat people, women, religious people? Anyone who prevents a person who is legally entitled to vote should be treated the same way, regardless of the victim of the crime. No group should be “more equal” than others, and as an additional selling point of this concept, I’d like to note that it will make it a good deal easier to prosecute. No more copouts like this:

Washington said selective prosecution is very hard to prove, and in order to do so he would have to have to “dig in his head” to determine if Walters was treating black and white people differently.

Remove motive from the equation used to determine whether something is a crime and all of a sudden it’s just about facts that are easily proved. Ramp up the penalties and you’ve got a crime prevention tool that will make smart people think twice before committing the crime, or will cause the dumb people who do commit it to be taken out of circulation for a longer period, thus preventing repeats.

More than anything, my biggest concern with the concept of “hate crimes” was that at some point it would make the leap from adding penalities to consisting wholly of the crime. And now it has. A man who “desecrated” a Quran has been “arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said.” He put two Qurans in toilets. By all means, charge him with littering, but that should be the end of it, barring whatever social pressure he might be put under by his community. A similar “crime” occurred when someone wrote rude remarks in a Quaran and tucked in a slice of bacon before throwing it on the steps of a mosque. How are these things materially different than burning a flag, burning a soldier in effigy, or carrying signs around that threaten beheading? Don’t those things exhibit hate too?

During the whole Piss Christ controversy, I and most other Christians complained loudly about the fact that Andrew Serrano was disrespectful and obnoxious, and we didn’t want him creating his “art” with our tax dollars. Failing to subsidize something with taxpayer funds is NOT equivalent to blocking him from doing it. It just requires him to either do it for free, or get funding elsewhere. All he had to do was ask his multitude of liberal supporters to chip in – and since liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families, he probably would have received it. Today, would Serrano’s “art” be considered criminal? Should it be? No.

I didn’t hear of anyone demanding his arrest because as a group Christians realize that it’s no crime to be an ass. The downside of that tolerance is that we have to put up with Fred Phelps and his spawn, who are pretty much universally despised, but his freedom to be an ass is part and parcel of our freedom to preach the gospel. We can’t have it both ways, as hate crime laws suggest we can. And we can’t afford to allow “hate crimes” to be selectively enforced to create a two-tier system of justice. Bottom line – in America we should be free to think, say and express what we want, and only be judged for our actions.

Added: What are the odds anybody even attempts to prosecute this guy? Zero, or less than zero? But, but, isn’t “desecrating the holy Quran” illegal and just plain wrong?! Mind you, I don’t want him prosecuted. My point is that it’s a ridiculous law.