On Hate Crime Legislation
---
When an incident — such as the recent attack in a Massachusetts gay bar that left one innocent gay man shot and two others hatcheted by a skinhead Aryan — is elevated to the status of "hate crime," many libertarians cringe. The standard talking points are "you're punishing thought" or "all crimes are hate crimes" or some other gobbledygook.
So let me ask this: When the suspect later kills a police officer in the line of duty, and his female companion who apparently was just along for the ride, do these same libertarians cringe in the same way over the fact that the former could have earned the (now deceased) perpetrator the death penalty in Arkansas, but not the "plain vanilla" murder of his passenger? Murder is murder, right? Aren't we just punishing thought (i.e., the thought of not wanting to be captured)? All crimes are hate crimes, right? Why should the death penalty be applied differently for one murder but not the other?
The simple truth is that we punish the same crime differently in different circumstances all the time. We punish repeat offenders differently than first-time offenders. We punish those on probation or parole differently from those who have fully served their time. We punish people who harm family members differently from those who harm strangers. We often punish younger offenders differently from older perpetrators. And, yes, we occasionally punish the rich differently from the poor. Are all such distinctions unfair and anti-libertarian? If not, if your problem with differential penalties only applies to "hate crimes," then why exactly? I just don't get it.
Open thread — comment away!
(Cross-posted at Spectrum Bloggers.)
So let me ask this: When the suspect later kills a police officer in the line of duty, and his female companion who apparently was just along for the ride, do these same libertarians cringe in the same way over the fact that the former could have earned the (now deceased) perpetrator the death penalty in Arkansas, but not the "plain vanilla" murder of his passenger? Murder is murder, right? Aren't we just punishing thought (i.e., the thought of not wanting to be captured)? All crimes are hate crimes, right? Why should the death penalty be applied differently for one murder but not the other?
The simple truth is that we punish the same crime differently in different circumstances all the time. We punish repeat offenders differently than first-time offenders. We punish those on probation or parole differently from those who have fully served their time. We punish people who harm family members differently from those who harm strangers. We often punish younger offenders differently from older perpetrators. And, yes, we occasionally punish the rich differently from the poor. Are all such distinctions unfair and anti-libertarian? If not, if your problem with differential penalties only applies to "hate crimes," then why exactly? I just don't get it.
Open thread — comment away!
(Cross-posted at Spectrum Bloggers.)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
6 February 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.