The Solution to Eliminating Hate Crime: Decriminalize the Hate

Michael Sabetta
13 Dec. 2011
FD5

The Solution to Eliminating Hate Crime: Decriminalize the Hate

While the concept of crime has been around for thousands of years, hate crime is a relatively new concept. According to one of our class readings, it is defined as “violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with” (Hate). Virtually every rational person would agree that crime, especially violent crime, is wrong. Similarly, most would agree that it is wrong to have hateful thoughts towards someone based on their social group. However, there is some disagreement on whether criminals should be prosecuted based on their thoughts or whether they should be prosecuted based on their actions. For many, the idea that our government will decide which thoughts are considered acceptable, during the commission of a crime, is a worrisome development. [THESIS] If we really want to eliminate hate crime from our society, there is a simple solution, decriminalize the hate and concentrate on punishing the crime, not the thoughts of the criminal. [THESIS]

I realize that this solution may sound overly simplistic to some, but we need to consider the long-term goals of hate crime legislation. One of which would be to reduce the number of incidents that are occurring. The best way to do that is to use increased punishment as a deterrent, and base that punishment on the severity of the act committed. If a potential criminal knows that he will have the book thrown at him, he will be less likely to commit the crime. If he knows that he will get off relatively easy, as long as he does not utter a racial slur, then he might be deterred from saying prohibited words, but not from committing the crime.

Another of the long-term goals of hate crime legislation is to reduce the overall amount of racism in our society. As an observer of human behavior, and given the unbending nature of people who hate, I worry that the means being employed could be completely antithetical to achieving that goal. Take, for example, a closet racist who is overheard making a racially insensitive comment at his place of work. The supervisor finds out about it and decides to send this individual to a sensitivity course on multicultural awareness. After being forced to undergo the humiliation of attending that course, in the end, he will probably say that he has seen the light and is better now. In reality, the only thing that will have been accomplished is that the level of hate this person feels will have been multiplied.

This same scenario can be discussed in regard to hate crimes. Somebody who is a racist and a criminal hears that he will suffer a harsher punishment for committing a racially motivated crime. Considering human nature, the chances are that this information will cause his racist feelings to grow stronger, not weaker. He then commits the crime, and in the process, accidentally lets a racial slur slip out. While he is stewing in prison, because of the harsher punishment that he received, his racism grows even more intense. More than likely, when he gets out, he will be even angrier and more driven to engage in racially motivated crime.

One of the readings for our course, titled “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes” mentions “…a recent spate of hate-related incidents around the country…” (Knickerbocker). I think that those who study these types of things should take a serious look at the correlation between an increased discussion of hate crimes legislation and the increase in actual hate crimes. As I stated earlier, given the obstinate nature of the racist mindset, the perceived threat inherent in this discussion will be treated as a provocation, not a deterrent. The article goes on to state that “A bill in the house would add protection based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability to existing federal hate-crimes legislation addressing violent crimes” (Knickerbocker). I understand the idea behind this legislation and I am sure that the proponents think that they are helping to solve the problem. However, as feel-good as this bill might be, I doubt that it will do anything to reduce crime on the groups that it is seeking to protect. In fact, for reasons already discussed, it could actually make the situation worse.

To protect the members of these groups, and everyone else for that matter, we should increase punishment for all violent crimes, regardless of the motivation. We do not need useless legislation that only provokes the worst among us, and we do not need the thought police determining which thoughts are acceptable. Hate is an ugly word and a sad way of life. It is, however, not a crime.


Works Cited
“Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress.” APA Online 1998. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/#top].

Knickerbocker, Brad. “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes.” csmonitor.com. 3 June 2005. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0603/p03s01-ussc.html].