Defending Hate Crime Laws

publius gives the reasons I am personally in favor of hate crimes as a category of crime and see them as consistent with my rabbid commitment to free speech:

Cohen says that hate crimes aren’t really different from any other crime — so there’s no need for extra penalties.  That’s not true.  Hate crimes are specifically intended not merely to injure the individual, but to politically threaten the larger group and to deny them their civil rights.

Hate crimes, in short, are politics by extralegal means.  Lynching in the South, for instance, wasn’t just a crime against an individual — it was a signal to the larger community.  And so because hate crimes have additional consequences above and beyond the individual injury, they are more harshly punished.  That’s the “real purpose.”

In one sense, all crimes criminalize “thought.”  The American criminal justice system requires showing not merely an act, but an intent.  If I fall down accidentally and kill you, I can’t be prosecuted.  Yes, I committed an act of homicide, but I didn’t intend to do that act.

We’re not criminalizing thoughts or opinions.  We inferring a specific type of criminal intent from tangible evidence — just like we must infer intent to murder from tangible evidence.

Your Thoughts?

"I applaud your approach and recommend, if you like, “Rogerian Argument” which does - as ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Perhaps this idea's time has come. I like your logical and convincing presentation. I have ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Yes! We need methods to help us have conversations with people we disagree with. Since ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Snoke is not well developed because he does not need to be. We already know ..."

Religion and Philosophy in The Last ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment