Different as Night and Day

Would the Holocaust, the massacre of Jews during World War II, be remembered in such great detail if those killed were just randomly chosen for slaughtering regardless of their ethnicity? The answer depends on why this tragedy stands out from other crimes.

The Holocaust is not remembered because the number of people murdered was so great. The Holocaust is remembered because the motive for the killings was so harshly aimed at one group of people. The massacre left victims isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law.

Hate crimes are crimes against people, not property, and range from broken windows to broken bones. Professor Kevin Levin from California State University in San Bernardino says a hate crime is "a crime against humanity and a crime against a pluralistic society."

It is important that hate crimes be singled out from all other crimes because the damage done is far worse. In recent years, the number of hate crimes have left the victim's community wondering why they were not protected by the power structure created to protect them.

Matthew Shepard, a gay college student from Wyoming, was beaten unconscious and then strapped to a fence to die. Billy Jack Gaither, a gay man from Alabama, was beaten to death and thrown in a burning pile of tires. James Byrd, Jr., an African-American man, was beaten and dragged behind a truck as he struggled to free himself; he was killed when his head was torn off.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced after the White House Conference on Hate Crime in 1997 and has gained force in the light of brutal cases.

The existing legislation, section 245 of Title 18 U.S.C., enacted in 1968, creates barriers for federal government in hate crime cases, but HCPA would help break down the barriers.

HCPA is necessary to combat hate crimes and tells the nation that hate crime should and will not be tolerated in the United States. Hate is a federal crime, and the federal government now has the authority to investigate crimes that are ignored at the local level.

Opponents ask how the government can decide the attacker's motive. Not everyone confesses, but motive plays a part in punishment and courts often struggle with the problem of why the accused did what they did.

Reading minds did not play a role in why Charles C. Apprendi shot at the only African-American family in his neighborhood. When Apprendi told police that he wanted to send the family a message that they did not belong, it was clear why he fired the gun. When the trial came about, Apprendi denied that he was motivated by the color of the family's skin. He said that what made him pull the trigger was the color of their door: purple.

An injury is an injury. However, when it is directed toward a certain group of people, it becomes more than someone getting hurt. The victim and community are affected psychologically, and the feelings of intimidation are not easily erased.

What's your opinion?

Back

Last year, a black man in Texas was tied to the back of a pick-up truck and dragged to his death. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against the three white men responsible.

This year, a white man was found guilty of stabbing his wife 44 times, killing her. His sentence: life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The difference? One case was considered a hate crime, the other was not. Any crime deemed a "hate crime" carries enhanced punishments. Hate crimes are any crimes committed because of hate or prejudice toward an individual or group.

So ... if I commit a "love crime," do I get a reduced sentence? What did you say? Did you say, "There is no such thing as a love crime?" If so, then why is there a need for "hate crime" legislation?

ALL crimes are hate crimes.

A member of the Ku Klux Klan is walking down the street. He sees a black man, beats him, kills him, robs him, and leaves. It is considered a hate crime.

A white man who needs the money for a fix sees that same man. He beats him, kills him, robs him and leaves. It is not a hate crime.

Is the man any less dead? Is the crime any more horrible one way or the other? Is one motive more deserving of punishment than the other? No.

Hate crime legislation is a joke. Penalties should not be heightened because the crime was committed out of hatred. Whether a man is beaten because he is gay or black or just looked at someone the wrong way, the crime is the same. The punishment should be as well.

So am I saying the three white men in Texas should receive life in prison just like the man who stabbed his wife? Am I saying they should not attact racism and bigotry? No. They should both get the death penalty.

The problem with hate crime legislation is that it can turn any case into a hate case. Every time a minority is mugged, it could be a hate crime. Every time a woman is raped, it could be a hate crime. Where is the line drawn? Where can it be drawn?

What if a poor man beat and robbed a rich man because he despised wealth? Is it a hate crime? How about if a gun control advocate attacked a member of the NRA? Is that a hate crime?

The more important question should be, "Does it matter?" Does it matter why someone was beaten? Does it matter why the man raped the woman? Does sexual orientation really matter in a court case?

Politicians are striving for a colorblind society and a society that accepts gay as normal. But this legislation does the opposite. It says, "You are different. You are gay and black, so the man should receive more time in jail." It says, "He was only after your money for his next fix. He wasn't after you because of skin color or sexual orientation. We'll let him off easier."

A double standard of punishment is ludicrous. Any crime can be a hate crime if you dig deep enough. But does it make the crime any more heinous? Does it make it worthy of a harsher punishment? No.