In a sustainable democracy it is the obligation of the majority to protect the rights of the minority — alternatively described as those not in political power. Without this, the risk of tyranny by the majority is unchecked. This thinking is codified in our Bill of Rights.
This concept of protecting the minority serves every citizen of our country, including those in the majority, who may find themselves in the minority down the road.
Hate crime legislation is targeted at two acts, only one of which is being formally prosecuted. The first is the criminal behavior of the perpetrator, which runs the gamut from property damage to murder. The second crime is the message to people of the same subgroup that they, too, are the target of this crime. The characteristics of these affected classes is broad — race, ethnicity, religious persuasion, sexual orientation, disability among others — and by definition covers each of us.
The intent of the legislation is that we as a society wish to be both clear and vigilant that crimes committed with this additional hate component are identified and allow for additional penalty. It is our statement that crimes committed because people hate someone or a group is criminally aggravating behavior. Citizens are protected by the first amendment to vocalize hateful views, but once they break the law, they have committed an aggravated crime.
Critics of hate crime legislation have responded that by granting special consideration to victims of ‘politically incorrect’ crimes, the legislation denies equal protection under the law. The fact is while this is targeted to protect potentially more vulnerable groups of people, it serves all. And crimes motivated by hate hurt all of us.
Last summer a synagogue in Carmel was defaced with swastikas by a man who said the “place was full of ethnic Jews who had too much influence.”
Should we have a straightforward escalator that says this crime is beyond defacing property and intended to single out a specific group? Yes.
If this same crime were committed against a black congregation, would be want the same? Yes.
How about against a congregation of all white Christians, would we want the same? Yes.
If a Nazi in Charlottesville drives his car into a crowd protesting a white supremacist rally and murders someone, should hate be a compounding issue and provide additional tools to the justice system? Yes.
If a Muslim drove a car into a group of Christians and murdered someone, would the chance to increase the penalty under hate crime legislation be available? Yes.
Our country is an evolving melting pot. We owe our success to our ability to welcome, absorb, and integrate people from everywhere who bring their gifts and energy to our great country. This pot is fragmented by all sorts of different characteristics that create minorities. Those in the minorities and those in the majority need to be protected from crime driven by hate.
Why would we not support legislation to protect all from hate?
