« God and Man at Samford | Main | The Joy of Goodness »
February 18, 2006
Hate Crimes in Alabama?
Matthew Hall (he of the famous "man kills deer with bare hands" story of a while back) points out the relatively little attention the media have given to the Baptist church burnings in Alabama in recent weeks. Hall notes an exception: Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby.
Jacoby asks what would be the reaction nationally if ten gay bookstores had been firebombed in San Francisco or if ten mosques were burned down in Detroit. Jacoby asserts that legislation would be introduced in Congress immediately to address the new round of "hate crimes" and a nationwide hunt would ensue for the terrorists who committed the atrocities. Jacoby polls anti-hate crime groups around the nation, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, and none of them seem willing to identify the burning of ten rural Alabama Baptist churches to be an act of hate.
Jacoby suggests the problem isn't that rural Baptists need "hate crimes" protection, but rather that the entire enterprise seems inconsistent and politically-charged. Jacoby concludes:
But real progress will come only when we abandon the whole misguided notion of "hate crimes," which deems certain crimes more deserving of outrage and punishment not because of what the criminal did, but because of the group to which the victim belonged. The burning of a church is a hateful act regardless of the congregants' skin color. That some people bend over backward not to say so is a disgrace.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 07:47 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834751f9753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hate Crimes in Alabama? :
Comments
They obviously cannot be hate crimes because only white Christians commit hate crimes.
I thought this was an established fact.
Congress is needed only to protect the people from Fundamentalist Christians, and so anything which stifles the Fundamentalists isn't hate but instead a form of love for broader society. Because Christians deserve it don't you know. For all the history of terror and outrage under their oppressive power.
Posted by: Patrick | Feb 19, 2006 12:02:59 PM
The whole "hate crimes" extra punishment is absurd. A cracked skull is a cracked skull. It is the severity of the crime that should decide the punishment--not whether a victim is in a group favored by politicians who are clearly seeking that group's votes.
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan | Feb 19, 2006 5:54:15 PM
I guess I've always supposed that a person may commit a crime for any of the following reasons:
1) personal gain and indifference to the victim
2) personal hatred of the victim
3) hatred of the victim's group
4) no particular reason at all (e.g., sheer thrill)
Set (3), hate crimes proper, are pretty bad. But isn't set (4) completely monstrous and really the most hateful of all?
I'd be inclined to agree with Dcn Bresnahan that a cracked-skull is indeed a cracked-skull and that attempting to levy additional penalties based on motive is rather fraught with ambiguity. But nevertheless we do distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree murder. The conditions and motives of the crime, even given the same net effect, can be considered mitigating factors and deemed to make a difference even in our positive law. And it seems to me if we're going to levy an additional penalty against type 3 crime, we should have an ever stronger one for type 4.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Feb 20, 2006 4:00:12 PM








Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004