Punishing perceived bias
After it passed in the House last week, legislation is being considered today in the Senate known as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.
How can a bill against hate and crime not be a good thing, asks Paul Greenberg (rhetorically). Surely both need to be opposed.
But under the bill’s title, like a snake under a rock, is the dubious concept that George Orwell named concisely enough in “1984”: thoughtcrime.
And also like a snake under a rock, it’s pretty much hidden from view because major media aren’t covering it. Good thing journalists like Greenberg are.
What will this do as law?
It establishes severe penalties for those thinking wrong thoughts during the commission of a serious crime – from 10 years to life, depending on the crime involved.
And what would those wrong thoughts be? The additional penalties would be assessed if the crime were committed “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion or national origin” of the victim.
Another section of the bill applies to crimes committed “because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person.” There must be a reason for differentiating between gender and gender identity in the law, but I’d rather not guess.
You see…
It’s not just the crime that is to be judged anymore, but the politics of it. The accused doesn’t become eligible for additional punishment unless he’s motivated by one of the designated politically incorrect hates named in the bill…
It’s an approach to crime and punishment premised on the (unspoken) theory that it’s not as bad to hate some folks as to hate others, or to commit the same crime but for reasons other than the politically incorrect ones specified in the bill. Like greed, revenge, envy or just general cussedness.
They count for more if committed with perceived bias against the protected classes.
Think about it, Gentle Reader, if this subject still permits thought rather than blind emotion: When we punish only some motivations for a crime, we necessarily privilege – as the academics say – other kinds. And we wind up with a dual standard of justice: political and nonpolitical, “bias crimes” and the dull old conventional ones, “social justice” and just plain justice.
See how this fails to hold up to logic, while we still can. And speaking of that…
Robert Anton Wilson, who was a combination of pop philosopher and libertarian agitator, said it: “Academia cannot argue the rational principle that hatred of any group doesn’t make sense; they dumped that when they dumped logic (as a ‘male’ perversion). The argument between left and right now consists only of debating which are the correct groups to hate.”
As Greenberg concludes:
The line between “1984” and 2009, sci-fi and serious political discourse, ideology and law, grows ever thinner…
0 Comment
I hate . .. HATE . . . hate crime legislation. Aside from the violations of free speech aspects of it, from what I’ve been able to figure out it also puts extra burdens on local police and prosecutors — as well as the federal court system — all for crimes that already carry hefty penalties.