Over the years we've called attention to numerous hate crimes. Among them:
•In 1998, an 84-year-old woman in Ada was raped, bound and stabbed 41 times. Then her throat was slit. No rallies were held to call attention to the crime.
Advertisement
•That same year, a black man murdered an Asian woman at an Oklahoma City convenience store, the second time in three weeks that such a crime occurred. In response, no politician called for any new laws.
•In 1994, a truck driver reported for work at a Southern California company embroiled in a labor dispute. A union militant hit him with a chunk of concrete and then beat him senseless with a pipe. The union's response was a nationwide appeal — for funds to defend the attacker and get the charge reduced.
What the above three hate crimes have in common is that they weren't really hate crimes. The victims weren't members of a protected class. The crimes weren't adjudged to warrant an add-on sentence.
Hate crime laws discount the worth of some victims and elevate the status of others. All victims deserve equal justice, but under the hate crime concept, some criminals get a routine sentence for a particular crime and others get extra time tacked on because they not only committed a crime but they did it for the "wrong” reason — bias instead of economic gain (robbery), bigotry instead of thrill-seeking, a victim's status (gender, race, religious beliefs) instead of victimhood itself.
Many murders warrant a sentence of death; no add-on can possibly make that sentence more terminal. With "lesser” crimes, though, there seems to be no limit to application of the hate crime concept. In fact, it's so limitless that hate crime statutes could conceivably cover every category of victim — which would make the whole concept moot.
A recent killing in Oklahoma has revived the debate over the state's hate crime law, which lacks the element of sexual orientation — also lacking in federal law — in the classification of exalted victimhood. Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater want the law expanded. At best, this is pandering; at worst, it's a knee-jerk answer to a complex question.
As prosecutors, Edmondson and Prater need to make the case that hate crime laws in general and the proposed expansion in particular will do anything to prevent such crimes from occurring. They need to justify the inclusion of some victims and the exclusion of others in the special recognition category. They need to get beyond the emotionalism of hate crime laws and get to the science of it.
Do added penalties deter crime? Do they discount the worth of victims (those cited above, for instance) whose status leaves them out of the hate crime net?
We await their answers.
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Yes, William, if you do the crime you should do the time. But that is precisely the point. In this world we live in, there are judges and prosecutors both who decline to charge people who "do the crime" with the appropriate charge because the victim is either a minority or gay (or both). Far too often we see violent offenders let off with far lesser charges than had the victim been white and heterosexual.
Just like in the 1960s when black men were lynched and the people doing it often got away scot free!
It's too bad we NEED to have hate crime laws, but as long as there is unequal justice there is a need for federal and state laws that make sure equal justice is handed down.
One rationale I think has bearing on this issue of why a violent act against someone may be more than a simple criminal action is this: Most violent crimes are committed by someone who personally knows the victim. I think it is something like >85% of all homicides and assaults. Domestic violence, assault, and murder between people who know one another almost certainly have nothing to do with the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability (Oklahoma’s current official hate crime ‘categories.’) These crimes mostly result from the people’s personal relationships with one another. In other words, they know one another, they fight with each other on a very personal level, and they know how violent the other can be. Armed robbery, mugging and burglary may typically involve people unknown to one another, yet the motive is typically driven by the criminal’s desire to take property that is not theirs. … … … … Most law-abiding citizens do not freely associate with criminals. Yes, we all come in contact with unknown criminals in public, but we do not pal around with them. We chose this path because we don’t want to be a part of law breaking, &/or become a victim of violence by criminals. By doing so we all minimize our personal risk of harm. We take additional steps to reduce our risk of violence by locking our cars, alarming our homes & businesses, &/or keeping a weapon nearby. When a person is targeted for no other reason than belonging to a perceived demographic (race, disability, religion, etc.) then their precautions to protect themselves from crime by non-association and by personal security measures, is for naught. All life comes with risk, but when your personal efforts to reduce your risk can be rapidly circumvented, simply because a bigoted person decides it’s a great idea to beat-up or kill a Muslim, for example, for the jollies or ‘to show them’, then the crime is especially heinous & should be treated as such by the courts. All people deserve to be protected from crime driven by bigotry, it just so happens that almost no one to date has decided to beat up the older white guy just because he represents something that the bigots want to run out of society. With today’s civil unrest, it is a real possibility that this could happen. If you are the victim of such an attack, you may very well wish the criminal to be treated more harshly than just a slap on the wrist. Even white/Caucasian is a race.
Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Dec 8, 2007 12:45 PM
Kevin/Edmond, your comment “I know quite a few straight guys who beat their wives but suffered no consequences. I guess the law devalues women as well then?,” first off, is just plain sad. Secondly, it does not meet the criteria of a hate crime. You’re referring to a crime committed by someone known to the victim that is based on their personal relationship. Hate crime involves the arbitrary selection of a victim from a ‘hated’ demographic. BUT since you brought the gender issue up regarding hate crimes, you are sort of correct in saying the laws devalue women. Oklahoma’s current hate crime law does not include gender, so if a woman is murdered or attacked for the simple fact that she is a woman, then NO, the defendant cannot be charged with a hate crime. The same is true for someone attacked just because he is a man, although those crimes are much more rare.
Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Dec 8, 2007 12:43 PM
Again WTF is a hate crime? If I shoot and kill some one that is murder if I shoot them I think it is obvious that I don’t like the person. Dose it matter in the court of law why I didn’t like the person. Dose it matter the color of his skin or religion. No! He is dead and I should be charged with murder if it was not in self defense or an accident then I should be hung by the neck until I was dead. Justice is blind. The race card has no purpose. If some one commits an assault based on sex, race, religion or sexual orientation they are guilty of the crime they committed there motives are really irrelevant. Do the crime do the time.
Gary, once again you are presenting an apples vs. oranges argument.
Being a bigoted intolerant preacher that inveighs against the so called gay "lifestyle" is, unfortunately, a right in this country: the First Amendment guarantees it. Just as it does for loathsome KKK members-you see, even someone like you, with your bigoted narrow minded view of the world is entitled to speak as freely as you wish, in any forum, without fear of any reprisal (other than the criticism you are getting on this board, and righfully so).
Dan is 100% right-if someone spray painted your church with hateful signs you can BET you would be at the front of the line screaming about hate crimes, wouldn't you?
No, we're talking about something totally different.
And yes, if that same narrow minded bigoted 'preacher' went on a rant disguised as a 'sermon' and preached about how evil gay people are and then one of the parishoners went out and killed a gay person, you better believe they should be charged with a murder and a hate crime.
It's just too bad that in 2007 there are still people like you around, spreading your message of hate and intolerance.
It's sad, really, that you can say the things you say when you know nothing about what you speak, save for what you have been told, no doubt.
By tarring and feathering an entire group of people you just show your own shortcomings.
Should we do the same for all heterosexuals, that beat their wives, cheat on the same, and molest their children?
Hardly. But by your twisted logic we should.
Gary, what a ridiculous idea. You have been watching too much fox "news" and not thinking for yourself. KKK members are not arrested for their stupid rants about black people - why would a minister be arrested for a stupid rant about gay people? This is about crimes against other people who are different, and only because they are different. If some group of atheists attacked a member of your church only because they are a member of the church, you would be the first to scream about a hate crime. Gay people deserve no less - regardless of what you personally think of them.
Jeff - will it come down to arresting a minister as an accomplice for preaching on Sunday about the sins of homosexuality and then, one of his parishners goes out and kills a homosexual? Notice that I do not use the term "gay" to describe homosexuals. No, I will not. I will not use this once wonderful-meaning "word" in any shape or form to describe homosexuality. This "word" has been twisted and perverted by the homosexual community in order to make their lifestyle more publicly acceptable.
I'm glad to see how it's being publicized at how unfair these laws are and more are being pushed to protect only a small segment of the population. All crimes that are committed regardless of race/gender/sex..etc... should be punished equally.
Ken, you do YOURSELF no favors when you make statements that have absolutely no basis in fact.
I can quote you dozens of cases, most from Bible Belt areas like Oklahoma and Texas and throughout the deep south where straight (usually white) men attacked or killed gay men (sometimes black or other minority gay men, too) and were let off with literally nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
One especially egregious example was one in Texas about 10 years back when the judge was lenient on a group of teenage boys who murdered a gay man. He reduced the charge to manslaughter and they served almost no jail time. Why? He believed stories the defense attorney presented that the murdered gay man was "coming on" to the boys and by their twisted logic deserved to be killed.
I get so sick and tired of the Oklahoman and other right wing outlets beating this issue over and over.
No, Mr. Editorialist, this doesn't discount the worth of any victims. As usual, you are presenting your typical straw man argument.
What hate crime laws DO is ensure that all victimes receive equal justice.
Until that day comes, these laws are necessary.
We don't want extra punishment, we only want to ensure EQUAL punishment for the same crimes, even when committed against someone that many prosecuters and judges somehow consider subhuman.
You may be surprised that this type of bias exists in 2007 in America, I am not. And the countless examples from the not so recent past prove this.
Know of what you speak before you stick your foot in your mouth, please.
Ken, that's not a factually inaccurate statement. There are examples all over the internet - look for them. Here's an example: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1D61030F934A15751C1A965958260
And yes, Kevin, the law has historically devalued women as well.
The crime that was committed, the murder of the gay fellow, was NOT a hate crime. He was killed as part of a gang initiation, or at least that is what the Smokelahoman has reported. In fact, I believe the paper also reported the accused was thought to be gay...so this wasn't a hate crime. That being said, what's the harm in including sexual orietation in the statute?
Dan, you have any factual information to back that up? I know quite a few straight guys who beat their wives but suffered no consequences. I guess the law devalues women as well then?
"In most of the country today, if a straight person attacks a gay person, they get off with a slap on the wrist, as the judicial system places less value on the victim." Sorry, but I just don't see any shred of truth whatsoever in that statement. It is true that too many criminals get off too easy for too many crimes, but you do your cause no favors when you make such factually inaccurate statements.
Perhaps the Oklahoman should push for equal penalties for equal crimes. i.e. If a white man kills a black man, why should he receive a lesser penalty? But, historically, he has. And in many parts, it still happens this way. In most of the country today, if a straight person attacks a gay person, they get off with a slap on the wrist, as the judicial system places less value on the victim. Until justice is truly blind, something needs to be in place to ensure that the minority is treated as fairly in court. And that is the rationale behind hate crime legislation, not "exalted victimhood".
14
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Just like in the 1960s when black men were lynched and the people doing it often got away scot free!
It's too bad we NEED to have hate crime laws, but as long as there is unequal justice there is a need for federal and state laws that make sure equal justice is handed down.
Being a bigoted intolerant preacher that inveighs against the so called gay "lifestyle" is, unfortunately, a right in this country: the First Amendment guarantees it. Just as it does for loathsome KKK members-you see, even someone like you, with your bigoted narrow minded view of the world is entitled to speak as freely as you wish, in any forum, without fear of any reprisal (other than the criticism you are getting on this board, and righfully so).
Dan is 100% right-if someone spray painted your church with hateful signs you can BET you would be at the front of the line screaming about hate crimes, wouldn't you?
No, we're talking about something totally different.
And yes, if that same narrow minded bigoted 'preacher' went on a rant disguised as a 'sermon' and preached about how evil gay people are and then one of the parishoners went out and killed a gay person, you better believe they should be charged with a murder and a hate crime.
It's just too bad that in 2007 there are still people like you around, spreading your message of hate and intolerance.
It's sad, really, that you can say the things you say when you know nothing about what you speak, save for what you have been told, no doubt.
By tarring and feathering an entire group of people you just show your own shortcomings.
Should we do the same for all heterosexuals, that beat their wives, cheat on the same, and molest their children?
Hardly. But by your twisted logic we should.
I can quote you dozens of cases, most from Bible Belt areas like Oklahoma and Texas and throughout the deep south where straight (usually white) men attacked or killed gay men (sometimes black or other minority gay men, too) and were let off with literally nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
One especially egregious example was one in Texas about 10 years back when the judge was lenient on a group of teenage boys who murdered a gay man. He reduced the charge to manslaughter and they served almost no jail time. Why? He believed stories the defense attorney presented that the murdered gay man was "coming on" to the boys and by their twisted logic deserved to be killed.
I get so sick and tired of the Oklahoman and other right wing outlets beating this issue over and over.
No, Mr. Editorialist, this doesn't discount the worth of any victims. As usual, you are presenting your typical straw man argument.
What hate crime laws DO is ensure that all victimes receive equal justice.
Until that day comes, these laws are necessary.
We don't want extra punishment, we only want to ensure EQUAL punishment for the same crimes, even when committed against someone that many prosecuters and judges somehow consider subhuman.
You may be surprised that this type of bias exists in 2007 in America, I am not. And the countless examples from the not so recent past prove this.
Know of what you speak before you stick your foot in your mouth, please.
And yes, Kevin, the law has historically devalued women as well.