Hi Steve. I don't know if there is a more straightforward way to contact you. I enjoy your writing and agree with you often, but not always. I think that's the appropriate ratio. Have you ever commented on Hate Crime? The current story from the NYT
"Two of the men convicted in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing got additional life sentences for fed…
Hi Steve. I don't know if there is a more straightforward way to contact you. I enjoy your writing and agree with you often, but not always. I think that's the appropriate ratio. Have you ever commented on Hate Crime? The current story from the NYT
"Two of the men convicted in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing got additional life sentences for federal hate crimes. The third was sentenced to 35 years."
would be a good jumping off point. My view is that murder is bad, and that murder should be punished. Murder for money and murder for road rage and murder for dislike of a person's skin color or sexuality are equally heinous. Hate crime is thought crime. Should we prosecute a separate offence based on motive? Taking motive into account when sentencing seems to make sense to me, but why add a separate life sentence for what you THINK the person was thinking?
I'm sure you already have plenty to write about, but I'd be interested in your views.
"I'm sure you already have plenty to write about, but I'd be interested in your views."
Hi Dave, this is a actually a very interesting question. My knee-jerk response is that hate crime legislation is a good thing. We already consider motive when deciding punishment for crimes in the case of temporary insanity, or whether a parent kills somebody who hurt their child, for example. Similarly, we treat the rape of a minor more seriously than the rape of an adult. The nature and motivations behind a crime do matter.
There's also the idea that the way we treat different crimes sends a message about the kind of society we want to be. Hating somebody, simply for being who they are, is unacceptable in any decent society. So if you act on that hate, maybe it should be punishable? The additional life sentences were largely symbolic, they're already serving life. But maybe the symbolism matters.
But that said, I do totally see your point. As you say, there's often a significant amount of mind-reading that needs to take place to convict somebody of a hate crime. And in the current climate, there's certainly a risk that any inter-racial crime will be assumed to be based on hate. Definite food for thought. I'll definitely consider an article on this. Thanks a lot.
Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist. What do you think?
Also, in many jurisdictions the definition of hate crime includes a list of identities susceptible to hate crimes. In California the list is “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, political affiliation, and position in a labor dispute.” Sort of looks like the practical effect is codification of identity politics.
"Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist."
I don't think so exactly. Though there is a danger of it. But I'm talking strictly about violence-is-violence.
Consider Peyton Gendron for example. Peyton's stated aim was to kill as many black people as possible. Should we treat his crime in any way differently to somebody who kills indiscriminately? We're already clear that killing is wrong, but should there be *any* additional consideration for the racist element?
If not, does that mean that race based hatred is morally neutral?
Identity politics has taken some terrible turns. But it's not completely arbitrary. Those identities are selected because they're the main characteristics people use to discriminate against and hate others. Note that in law, they're all neutral. It's not "the black race" it's just race. It's not "the female sex" it's just sex.
I would very much hope that if a black person or an Asian person went on a white person killing spree, there would also be additional consideration for the racist aspect of their crime.
I get that there's a concern that this might not happen in practice, or that the law might be applied too loosely, but is that a problem with the law or the society enacting it?
Hi Steve. I don't know if there is a more straightforward way to contact you. I enjoy your writing and agree with you often, but not always. I think that's the appropriate ratio. Have you ever commented on Hate Crime? The current story from the NYT
"Two of the men convicted in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing got additional life sentences for federal hate crimes. The third was sentenced to 35 years."
would be a good jumping off point. My view is that murder is bad, and that murder should be punished. Murder for money and murder for road rage and murder for dislike of a person's skin color or sexuality are equally heinous. Hate crime is thought crime. Should we prosecute a separate offence based on motive? Taking motive into account when sentencing seems to make sense to me, but why add a separate life sentence for what you THINK the person was thinking?
I'm sure you already have plenty to write about, but I'd be interested in your views.
"I'm sure you already have plenty to write about, but I'd be interested in your views."
Hi Dave, this is a actually a very interesting question. My knee-jerk response is that hate crime legislation is a good thing. We already consider motive when deciding punishment for crimes in the case of temporary insanity, or whether a parent kills somebody who hurt their child, for example. Similarly, we treat the rape of a minor more seriously than the rape of an adult. The nature and motivations behind a crime do matter.
There's also the idea that the way we treat different crimes sends a message about the kind of society we want to be. Hating somebody, simply for being who they are, is unacceptable in any decent society. So if you act on that hate, maybe it should be punishable? The additional life sentences were largely symbolic, they're already serving life. But maybe the symbolism matters.
But that said, I do totally see your point. As you say, there's often a significant amount of mind-reading that needs to take place to convict somebody of a hate crime. And in the current climate, there's certainly a risk that any inter-racial crime will be assumed to be based on hate. Definite food for thought. I'll definitely consider an article on this. Thanks a lot.
Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist. What do you think?
Also, in many jurisdictions the definition of hate crime includes a list of identities susceptible to hate crimes. In California the list is “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, political affiliation, and position in a labor dispute.” Sort of looks like the practical effect is codification of identity politics.
"Creating a new category of crime for being hateful feels to me to be related to the speech-is-violence zeitgeist."
I don't think so exactly. Though there is a danger of it. But I'm talking strictly about violence-is-violence.
Consider Peyton Gendron for example. Peyton's stated aim was to kill as many black people as possible. Should we treat his crime in any way differently to somebody who kills indiscriminately? We're already clear that killing is wrong, but should there be *any* additional consideration for the racist element?
If not, does that mean that race based hatred is morally neutral?
Identity politics has taken some terrible turns. But it's not completely arbitrary. Those identities are selected because they're the main characteristics people use to discriminate against and hate others. Note that in law, they're all neutral. It's not "the black race" it's just race. It's not "the female sex" it's just sex.
I would very much hope that if a black person or an Asian person went on a white person killing spree, there would also be additional consideration for the racist aspect of their crime.
I get that there's a concern that this might not happen in practice, or that the law might be applied too loosely, but is that a problem with the law or the society enacting it?