Hate Crimes

Given the pending legislation regarding hate crimes, I decided to publish some good thoughts on the issue by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason Ministries (www.str.org)
_______________________________________

The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.

Hate crime legislation, then, turns out to be not really about hate, but politics. It's not hatred for the victim that is punished. That's covered under existing statutes. Rather, it's hatred for a protected class--African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals, etc.--that's punished under hate crime laws.

Such legislation makes two crimes out of one. The assault is a crime against the victim. The hate is a crime against the victim's group. Yet how does one make sense of a crime against a group that is a different crime from the one against the victim? Groups have no rights according to the Constitution.

Hate crime laws create a whole new category of faceless, personless victims--the injured class. They identify crimes against no one in particular, but crimes nonetheless, offenses that are punishable. They don't prohibit all hate, only politically incorrect hate.
______________________________________

I cannot let the day pass without talking about the death of Matthew Shepard. When I first read the details I was sickened. My heart sank as I went over the story in the paper today. It made me want to cry.
In Laramie, Wyoming, a homosexual student from the University of Wyoming was, according to the LA Times, "brutally beaten, burned and left tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow with grave injuries, including a smashed skull, authorities said. Four people have been arrested. A passerby by found the victim, Matthew Shepard, 22, near death half a day after the attack. He was unconscious and his skull had been smashed with a handgun. He also appeared to have suffered burns on his body and cuts on his head and face. The temperature had dropped to the low 30's. On Friday he was in critical condition on a respirator at the hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado".

Apparently the police have arrested two men and two women connected with the attack. The men allegedly lured their victim from the Fireside Bar, a campus hangout, by telling him they were gay. The three of them drove off in a truck and then the two men beat Shepard to within an inch of his life. They beat him in the truck and then beat him some more after tying him to a fence about a mile outside of Laramie. Shepard's shoes and wallet were taken. Apparently two young women who had helped dump Matthew's bloody clothing eventually led the police to the suspects. Shepard was found on Wednesday evening by a man on a bicycle who first thought he was a scarecrow or a dummy tied to the fence.

I don't know how anyone can read this account without being moved. It's hard for me to imagine how such a thing can happen. I know that Christians like myself have been called evil for saying homosexuality is evil. On that point I can't recant. I think homosexuality is evil and I don't think it is evil to call evil by its real name.

However, even given that homosexuality is evil, no one has any liberty to treat a human being like Matthew Shepard--made in the image of God--that way, regardless of his sinful condition (and we all share that condition), to beat him within an inch of his life the way this young man was beaten by two other college students. This is brutal, this is criminal, this is unconscionable, and it ought to be severely punished.

However, hear me clearly: There is no direct moral or logical connection between believing homosexuality is immoral and gay-bashing. There is none. It does not follow that if you think homosexuality is wrong or evil, you are encouraging others to torment homosexuals. KABC talk show host Al Rantel--himself a homosexual--put it this way: This kind of thinking would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley.

Obviously, many people disagree, holding that moral censure of homosexuality does lead to gay-bashing. Many are publicly vocal, loudly denouncing such judgments--and those who make them--as immoral. Here's my question for those of you who think this way: Does the fact that you say I'm immoral for making such judgments encourage others to beat me up? Of course not.

If other people beat me up for the things I believe or the lifestyle I live, their sin is on their own head. I don't hold that homosexuals are inciting others to violence against me simply because they publicly judge my views as immoral. By the same token, simply taking a moral position on homosexuality does not lead to gay-bashing.

Certainly, evil people will seize on any rationalization to justify harming others. But just because they use that as a rationalization doesn't mean it's actually the cause.

As a Christian, I stand completely against those who treated Matthew Shepard this way, even though I also stand without apology with strong moral convictions against homosexuality . There is no contradiction. And every Christian person ought to be appalled by what happened to this young man and condemn it without reservation. I ask you right now to pray for his life. [Matthew Shepard died a few days later.]

I initially intended to offer you only the concerns I've just made. As a Christian, I had to speak against this. However, as I read further in the article another factor emerged that is a deep concern to me and needs to be addressed.

The article went on to explain that the attack on Matthew Shepard will probably be an animus to extend hate crime legislation in Wyoming to cover sexual preference, legislation that has failed repeatedly because critics have said it would give homosexuals special rights.

Now, I don't know about the special rights issue. I'm not concerned about that right now. But I am against hate crime legislation. I think crimes like this ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. But I do not think thoughts should be punished. I don't think motivations should be punished. I don't think immoral personal dispositions towards others should be punished. To put it simply, I don't think hate should be punished.

If somebody wants to hate me, they can hate me. As we used to say when I was a kid, this is a free country. Even as youngsters we understood that America was a place where certain things were completely off limits to the government. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of religion. We have freedom of press. And we have freedom of thought. Minimally we can believe what we want, we can like or dislike whom we want, and we can love or hate whom we want.

I'm not approving of hate, nor do I want to encourage it. It should be discouraged, but using the law is the wrong way to do that. Lots of things people have the freedom to believe and think are immoral, but I am not in favor of punishing people for believing those things. I am not in favor of punishing cowboys in Wyoming just because they hate homosexuals. I think they should be punished for assaulting homosexuals, but further punishment should not be added for hate.

The problem with all hate crimes is that they criminalize thought, not just behavior. The behavior is criminal already. The answer to this terrible crime committed against this 22-year-old homosexual man in Wyoming is not legislation against thought, but a punishment of the offenders to the full extent of the law for violating laws already on the books that protect all human beings equally from this kind of treatment. We should legislate against the action, not the thinking. Once we start legislating against the thinking, we're in big trouble.

Frankly, I'm surprised hate crimes legislation has not suffered a serious judicial challenge. The 14th amendment would offer adequate grounds. In a state with hate crimes legislation, if someone beat me exactly like Matthew Shepard was beaten, they would receive less punishment. That means I wouldn't have the same protection as he would, a violation of the equal protection clause.

Even apart from the 14th amendment, how can we make any thought punishable by the law? Making hate illegal isn't going to prevent hateful acts. There are already sanctions against assault. Do you think adding a little more punishment for the thought associated with the crime is going to deter a crime motivated by a powerful passion like hate?

The only real result will be to take the Orwellian step of criminalizing thought. As far as I'm concerned, I want to continue to cling to my boyhood ideal that America is still a free country, though this notion is becoming increasingly fanciful.
_____________________________________________