November 04, 2009 News+Opinion » Jack Hunter

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act criminalizes thought 

Hate Is Not a Crime

by Jack Hunter
jackhunter.jpg

Latest in Jack Hunter

When openly gay college student Matthew Shepard was targeted, tortured, and murdered in 1998, the story made national headlines. Soon after, MTV sent a camera crew down to Charleston, S.C., searching for a redneck or two who might offer some insensitive remarks about homosexuals for their True Life series. They found one. Me.

I was a student at the College of Charleston and, as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard's murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was "against God."

It's a comment I've regretted ever since.

My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God, and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture, and certainly not choice.

But in a free society, what people choose to think about homosexuality should be their choice. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act currently being pushed through Congress, which seeks to expand the definition of federal hate crime laws to cover homosexuals, is the criminalization of thought, pure and simple. It's bad enough that we already have federal laws that cover crimes motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice, which are also an affront to free speech and should be abolished. Battery, assault, and murder are horrible enough crimes on their own without attaching some special significance to what the perpetrator might think about his victim. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) rightly notes that there are "fundamental problems with any federal hate crimes legislation." He adds, "The Rule of Law requires opposition to this idea that we treat crimes differently."

Not that I don't understand the feelings of homosexuals or racial and religious minorities who sometimes feel like they are targets of violence. A few years back, a friend of mine was assaulted for verbally defending another friend. For his deed, my friend was beaten to a bloody mess, coming dangerously close to suffering permanent physical damage. The perpetrator had a criminal record and what some considered a history of angry behavior. In the opinion of some, he was mad at himself and the world. "Hate" indeed.

One can only imagine the anger and sorrow still felt by Matthew Shepard's family and friends, particularly those in the gay community who knew him. A loved one was taken by two emotionally dysfunctional men whose insecurities and personal shortcomings drove them to murder. No doubt, many would like to see Shepard's killers put to death, and it's an injustice this never happened. But not because Shepard was gay — but because he was an innocent human being who had done nothing to deserve his fate.

While murder is certainly worse than assault, is beating up a homosexual a worse crime than beating up my friend? If my friend were homosexual, should his assault take on an entirely new dimension? When violent crimes occur — each one born of evil intentions and producing gruesome results — are some more equal than others? For hate crime law advocates, their answer is an unqualified "yes!" Their logic is repulsive.

Advocates of hate crime laws argue that homosexuals and minority members are especially vulnerable to being assaulted because of their identities, and, as a result, require special legal protection. But for many, there is a perception that there is a noticeable disparity between black-on-white violent crime versus white-on-black violent crime, and they would be inclined to argue that as a group, white Americans are more vulnerable. Yet if such a disparity existed, would anyone dare advocate for special legal protection for whites? Some might argue that existing hate crime laws allow for this, but the idea that anti-white hate crimes would be prosecuted at the same high rate as anti-minority hate crimes is beyond laughable. No one seems to be clamoring for it.

Most violent crime is born of some sort of hatred, and examining motive is certainly crucial in any criminal investigation. But hate — for gays, minorities, women, chivalrous men — is still just a thought, and should not be itself a criminal action. Criminalizing the thought behind a violent act sets a dangerous precedent and gives special justice to special groups and lesser justice to victims of similar crimes who do not belong to those groups.

Stupid as it was, what I thought about homosexuality in 1998 should not have been a crime. A few weeks after the MTV special aired, I was standing in a King Street bar when a rather tough lesbian violently pushed me from behind, angry over my comments. Looking back, I'm surprised she didn't punch my lights out. That would have unquestionably been a crime. But not her opinion of me.

Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.

Tags: , ,

Comments (14) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 14

Add a comment | All comments »

Intent is a part of lots of crimes. Assault with intent to kill, for example, requires the judge and jury to figure out the guy doing the assaulting has had the thought that he wants to kill. I don't see the difference between being able to figure out someone's intent to kill or 'hate crime." Thought is a part of crime, fraud for example, if you write me a check it is not a crime, but if you write me a check with no intent in that check being good then that is fraud.

Posted by Greg T on November 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM | Report this comment

Are Chris Haire and Pat H in disagreement? Pat said that 55% of murders are committed by 5% of the population (assuming he meant by members of the black, male community and not 15+ million individual people). Chris said that 45% of murders are committed by whites. Given error bands in studies like this, I see no reason why this couldn't be the same stat stated differently.

Chris also said that WoW is the description of 86% (~6/7) of murders of white people. He then pointed out that whites are victims of violent crimes perpetrated by white people 5/6 times, and then re-stated that with gross numbers. That is pretty consistent.

So are they in agreement that, by and large, racial difference (between perpetrator and victim) doesn't play a significant role in violent crime and/or murder?

Another point to debate: the difference between motive and intent. Let's say that my BFF and I get into an argument and I slap his face so hard that he ends up falling over and bashing his head in against the counter... and dies. Okay, so I killed him, and I call the police. I didn't plan to slap the life out of him, but it happened in the moment. Does it matter what we were arguing about? What if he was straight, or Christian, or white... does that change anything? Should it?

Posted by factoryconnection on November 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM | Report this comment

I think Pat H's claim needs to be looked at again:

"That 55% of all murders are committed by about 5% of the US population, none of whom are white, apparently went unnoticed by the US congress in their discriminatory zeal."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 45% of all murders are committed by whites. Also, 86% of of all white victims were murdered other whites.

Whites also commit more gang related homicides than blacks (53.4% for whites and 41.2% for blacks.) However, blacks commit more drug related homicides than whites (65% for blacks and 33.9% for blacks).

Another interesting statistic: According to a 2006 Bureau of Justice report, whites are 4.9 times more like to be a victim of a violent crime committed by a fellow white person than a crime committed by a black person. In fact, 3 million whites in 2006 were victims of white on white crime, while only 605,656 where victims of black on white crimes.

Posted by chrishaire on November 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

I read Jack Hunter's article every week becasue it provides valuable insight into the conservative mind. Just by reading the title of his pieces you can predict his final analysis with nearly 100% accuracy. What is always surprising - and enlightening- are the assumptions and false premises which inform his conclusion. Central to Hunter's argument against hate crime legislation is the notion that we should not punish thought. However, that is the essential difference between first and second degree murder. A person's intentions are fair grounds for doling out punishment in our legal system. Do you disagree with this distinction Jack? We also wouldn't want to arrest an intellectually disabled child who confusedly took a piece of candy from the grocery store thinking the bin was a candy jar like the one his mother has on the coffee table. We would however want to arrest the teenager who shoplifts becasue he does not want to pay for the stolen item. The only difference between the two is their mental state regarding the commission of the "crime." Conservatives, and particularly the tough on crime brand, want to lay a simple mesh over our public lives which neatly divides the world into right and wrong, black and white. It's not possible as the ethical and moral world is so many shades of gray. Let's abandon this self-righteous nonsense and start to make some progress.

I would also add that I find it astonishing that anyone who has a god belief can claim that anyone's "logic is repulsive." Keep it up Jack. You provide tremendous insight week after week into the convoluted workings of the conservative mind.

Posted by hamburgler on November 6, 2009 at 10:51 AM | Report this comment

The hate crimes bill was specifically targeted against whites, more specifically white males. That 55% of all murders are committed by about 5% of the US population, none of whom are white, apparently went unnoticed by the US congress in their discriminatory zeal.

Posted by Pat H on November 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Classified Listings
  • Tokyo Bistro Just ate lunch there this week and it was great! They have a trendy, but… -CHS291
  • Il Cortile Del Re We went to Il Cortile after the Mike Moran Furniture show at Rebekah Jacob Gallery… -project_runwayHottie
  • Baked Heaven!!! The service was friendly & suggestive not to mention knowledgable on all the incredible… -alicia66
  • A.C.'s Bar and Grill Love A.C.'s brunch. Chicken and waffles are the best cure for a hangover. If you… -chaslovah
  • Tokyo Bistro The Sushi is AWESOME, their Dancing Dragon Roll is the best sushi I have ever… -Megan
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2009, Charleston City Paper   RSS