The Oregonian reports on efforts by an Oregon state senator to get rid of hate crime laws in that state. Gary George introduced a bill in the legislature that would greatly expand the number of crimes covered by Oregon’s hate crime laws. George would add crimes committed by eco-terrorists and anti-capitalists to the list of hate crimes.
The Oregonian sums up George’s views writing, “George, however, says that if criminals can be singled out for enhanced penalties if they are motivated by racism or anti-religious sentiment, he sees no reason not to include crimes against such embattled groups as fur farmers.”
Rather than see people who smash windows at fur shops get extra time in jail, however, George’s point is that it is possible to define pretty much any crime as a hate crime. The statute of his proposed bill defines anti-capitalist hate crimes, for example, as “a hatred of people who subscribe to a set of political beliefs that support capitalism and the needs of people with respect to their balance with nature.”
But while George sees this as a way to undermine hate crime bills, in fact other people are seriously attempting to use hate crime bills to go after people who commit crimes motivated by political ideology. Late last year, for example, prosecutors in Utah attempted to prosecute an animal rights activist under Utah’s hate crimes law.
Activist Eric Ward had been arrested and charged for misdemeanor trespass at a demonstration against a fur store. Utah’s hate crimes laws provides additional prosecutorial power if an individual or group attempts to intimidate or terrorize individuals from exercising their constitutional rights. Prosecutor Howard Lemke reasoned that this is precisely what Ward was attempting to do when he trespassed, and charged Ward with a felony provided for by the hate crimes bill.
Ward’s prosecution fell through for one reason — although the constitutionality of Utah’s hate crime statute is in question, a federal district judge had earlier dismissed charges against alleged white supremacists charged under the bill and made it clear in his ruling that he considered the law unenforceable as written. The Utah legislature had attempted to fix the problems with the law after that ruling, but it remain unchanged as of December 2000.
The broader issue raised by the actions in Utah and Oregon is this — can political ideology be the basis for hate crimes? Could a state such as Oregon, for example, create a hate crimes bill that gave higher sentences to anti-World Trade Organization protests?
Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds hate crime laws themselves — it currently has before it a case that should decide the matter once and for all — then applying additional penalties based on political ideology will almost certainly pass muster as well. The likely test will be whether or not the additional penalties meet a compelling state interest, and prosecutors would be able to produce a great deal of evidence about animal rights activists or anti-WTO protesters to bolster their case that the state has a compelling interest to curb violent activities.
It will be interesting how the Left responds to such developments. Some conservatives and libertarians have long argued against hate crime laws on the grounds that they provide additional punishment for what a convicted criminal thinks. The standard retort to this is that the criminals are not being punished for what they think. Hate crime laws only apply to people who have already been convicted of a crime, after all, and merely increase the penalties against those whom society has deemed it needs extra protection (and who would argue with the claim that a person who would murder another based solely on skin color rather than, say, greed, isn’t more dangerous?)
The problem with this argument, of course, is that those making it always assume that they will be the ones deciding which ideas are especially dangerous. Hate crimes laws return the issue of which speech is to be punished, when uttered in conjuction with the comission of a crime, to the political arena where is a very bad place for it to be. A better approach would be to get rid of such laws and return to judges more sentencing discretion so they can take into account such aggravating circumstances.
Source:
Senator questions laws against hate crimes. The Oregonian, February 10, 2001.
Utah’s Hate-Crime Law Enjoys Short-Lived Revival. Stephen Hunt, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 10, 2000.