From: Kermet Merl Key
Columbus
In the Bible there is a parable called the “Widow’s Mite.” In it, Jesus observes how the crowd puts money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums, but a poor widow also puts in two small coins worth a few cents. He tells his disciples the poor widow put in more than all the other contributors for they have all contributed from their wealth, but she, from her poverty, contributed all she had.
Rather than commending the widow’s generosity, Jesus is condemning both the social system that renders her poor, and the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it. We also see that from those that have been given, much more is expected (or a progressive tax plan, but that’s another topic).
When Paul Manafort was sentenced to only 47 months for crimes that amounted to treason because he “otherwise lived a blameless life” we saw how maximum and minimum sentences gave a judge leeway to punish a criminal based on more than guilt or innocence. And when Michael Cohen told Congress that Donald Trump had paid him for hush money he was directed to give to a porn star during the campaign (for an affair that happened nearly a decade ago) he presented a check as evidence. Did that mean Trump broke campaign finance laws? Not necessarily, as the debate on whether or not Trump committed a crime hinged on the intent or motive for the check.
By now it would seem obvious to those with even the most feeble of faculties that prosecutors, defense attorneys, criminals, victims, judges and, in fact, the entire justice system does and must look at more than just guilt or innocence. Like Jesus, they must consider motive and intent. Difficult, though not impossible to prove, motive for a crime is just as vital to determining guilt as it is to sentencing.
How then could one ignore the identity of a victim when it was the identity of the victim that motivated the crime? If sentencing is meant to punish or reduce the likelihood of a repeat behavior, then how can a judge not take these things into consideration when sentencing? If the reason someone committed a crime is someone’s identity — their religion, ethnicity, sexuality, color — and there is no likelihood the crime would’ve been committed but for this reason, then how could this be ignored during sentencing? For this reason alone Indiana must pass a hate crimes bill with substance and stop being one of the five states that refuse to understand the basics of justice.
