There is an interesting dilemma that has developed over this story and it has to do with the nature of "hate crimes." What investigators and prosecutors are wrestling with is the question of does this constitute a "hate crime"? The reason they are unsure are twofold, first the churches that have been burnt down are predominantly white churches. Had these been African-American churches and the arsonist was white then it would clearly fall under the rubric of a "hate crime." the second issue is the fact that it is a church rather than a synagogue or mosque. Can it be a "hate crime" because Christianity is a dominant religion?
Please hear me out, my point is not that this should be considered a "hate crime," because I don't believe it should. In fact, this situation reveals the logical absurdity of the concept of "hate crime" in the first place. Our justice system is set up to punish people based on their behavior. Do I suspect that the person or persons starting this fire have hate in there heart? Duh! It surely isn't motivated by love. However, is there action worse because they have hate in there heart than if they did it out of calloused indifference? Should the punishment be greater because they did it out of "hate"?
There is a grave danger here when we start legislating based on people's feelings rather than intent. This is different from determining if a crime was premeditated or on the spur of the moment. If a person plans to murder someone else and tries to do so in a way to cover up his tracks there is clearly more intent involved than if it is a spontaneous argument that gets out of hand and someone unintentionally gets killed.
Here is where we delve into moral quicksand. Lets say the person who is being killed is a minority or a homosexual, is the crime inherently worse than if the person was white? The dead guy is still dead regardless of his race or sexual preference. The murderer is still guilty of first degree premeditated murder regardless of WHY he killed the other guy. Is the life more valuable because the guy was a minority or gay? Should we punish the guy even more because of it? Can we really make a distinction that this was a "hate crime" as opposed to regular old murder? If a white guy kills a white guy isn't it pretty obvious there was "hate" there or at least really bad feelings?
Do you see my point, if it is wrong it is wrong regardless of the victim's background. If the arsonist is torching churches because they are churches or he is just doesn't like tall, pointy roofs on buildings he should be punished for his actions. Only time will reveal if these crimes are "hate" motivated but I have a hunch that they are not motivated by love.
5 comments:
things like hate crimes and the war on drugs only make sense if you think that our legal system should not only punish people, but attempt to change their minds. it has a whole lot of logical absurdity, unless you treat it as an exception.
i would say that there's a whole lot more intent involved in burning down 9 churches than in a pyromaniac who sets 9 random fires as the opportunites present themselves (just like the difference to pre-meditated murder).
I agree that there is a whole lot more involved in burning down nine churches than one. And I think that he should be judged accordingly. However, should we then tack on even more punishment because he did it out of hate? The danger is we now say some bad feelings are worse than other bad feelings. What the criminal did was wrong but we should expect equal justice to anyone.
Also, if these were all black churches or all white churches should that make a difference? What if they were "secular" buildings, should the person be punished less harshly? Or maybe more harshly because it was a "hate crime" against government?
My point is, I don't see why we would differentiate and punish one more than the other. I don't think either should get any less but why would one get more?
Concerning the war on drugs, we routinely legislate against certain behaviors. If our culture we have deemed some behaviors out of line because of various personal, familial or cultural consequences. Whether it be not putting a child in a car seat (Brittany Spears), driving 100 mph down the road, or using and selling drugs.
I see no inconsistency in making laws against certain behaviors. But I think we need to judge the behavior on its own sake and not increase punishment based on "hate."
Do you think it's the media that is pushing the idea of a "hate" crime or do you think it's the authorities? I just wonder who is trying to push these ideologies into our culture.
If it were me, I would have targeted Wal-Marts...now that would constitute as a hate-crime...lol.
Kim, honestly I think that there is a political agenda by some that want to make distinctions based on race, religion or sexual orientation. All crime is evil but there are some who want to make some crimes inherently worse than others based on these distinctions.
By judging some behaviors "hate" crimes we are able to do two things simultaneously. First, we make identical actions more punishable based on the person's internal feelings and secondly, we say some groups are inherently more valuable. It is a way of elevating certain groups to an elite status. That is part of what makes this situation more interesting.
The people investigating and reporting are conflicted because it flies against their assumptions. It would be easier to call it hate if it wasn't Christianity that was being attacked.
"It is a way of elevating certain groups to an elite status." I think that's the root of the issue here.
You make a good point here, Dave. It gives me something to think about other than our impending Ski Retreat. :)
Adam, you make a good point too with "i would say that there's a whole lot more intent involved in burning down 9 churches than in a pyromaniac who sets 9 random fires as the opportunites present themselves..."
Post a Comment