(I'm sure there are more arguments that are commonly made on both sides, but this is just intended as a summery.)
Click the spoiler button if you care about my opinion.
Honestly, I think both sides make some valid points. Just in principle, I really don't like the idea of adding extra punishment based on why the perpetrator committed a crime, and I think that over-sensitivity towards hate crime legislation has caused some issues in court cases over the years. In many cases, it can be very hard to prove one way or another if bigotry was a primary motive. If a white man kills a black man, is that automatically a hate crime? It shouldn't be (in my opinion) if the killing truly wasn't race-motivated; not all white people are racist against black people, and there are nearly an infinite number of reasons someone might kill another person that have nothing to do with race. However, proving that the killing either was or wasn't race-motivated in a court of law can be a sticky business. If the defendant was overheard telling a racist joke at work a week before the killing took place, should that be evidence that it was a hate crime? If the defendant once donated money dedicated to helping kids in a primarily black neighbourhood, should that be evidence that the killing wasn't a hate crime? Should evidence either supporting or denying that the defendant was generally racist even matter if it isn't directly related to the crime itself? After all, even if he was racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that the crime itself was race motivated. There are still a million other possible reasons why that particular white man ended up killing that particular black man, and merely being racist isn't a crime in and of itself.
So, given all of that (among other things, I'm sure), I think it's perfectly reasonable to take issue with hate crime legislation, and taking issue with it doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't care about disenfranchised demographics, or that one thinks bigotry and discrimination are okay. It just means they think that what happened to be in someone's head when they committed a crime shouldn't be on trial.
However, while I'm somewhat on board with that way of thinking on principle, in practise, I do certainly agree that crimes committed out of discrimination and bigotry are indeed inherently more vicious and harmful to society. There's also the issue that in many cases, hate crimes aside, we already punish people more or less based on their motives. In order for the taking of a human life to qualify specifically as murder, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant took that life with malicious intent. If it can be proven that the killing was both malicious and pre-meditated, that's even worse news for the defendant. If someone takes a life and can prove it was legitimate case of self-defence, they walk free (in many cases). Someone's intent when committing a crime has had a place in courtrooms for almost as long as courtrooms have existed, because the fact is, why someone did what they did matters to us on a very basic level. It often is the intent that makes an act truly evil or truly justified in our eyes. To have a criminal justice system of absolutes (beating someone up is ALWAYS wrong, taking a life is ALWAYS wrong, damaging someone's property is ALWAYS wrong, etc.) simply doesn't take in account the myriad reasons that human beings do the things they do, and the reasons for committing those actions play a huge role in the way we pass moral judgement on those actions (and in turn, how we feel the urge to pass legal judgement on them). I still think that hate crime legislation has been abused, and will almost certainly continue to be abused, and I think that needs to be called out for what it is, but the answer to that problem is not to do away with hate crime legislation all together. I think there is a solid legal precedent for its existence and continued practise, and I think it holds a vital place both in society and in criminal law.
So, given all of that (among other things, I'm sure), I think it's perfectly reasonable to take issue with hate crime legislation, and taking issue with it doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't care about disenfranchised demographics, or that one thinks bigotry and discrimination are okay. It just means they think that what happened to be in someone's head when they committed a crime shouldn't be on trial.
However, while I'm somewhat on board with that way of thinking on principle, in practise, I do certainly agree that crimes committed out of discrimination and bigotry are indeed inherently more vicious and harmful to society. There's also the issue that in many cases, hate crimes aside, we already punish people more or less based on their motives. In order for the taking of a human life to qualify specifically as murder, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant took that life with malicious intent. If it can be proven that the killing was both malicious and pre-meditated, that's even worse news for the defendant. If someone takes a life and can prove it was legitimate case of self-defence, they walk free (in many cases). Someone's intent when committing a crime has had a place in courtrooms for almost as long as courtrooms have existed, because the fact is, why someone did what they did matters to us on a very basic level. It often is the intent that makes an act truly evil or truly justified in our eyes. To have a criminal justice system of absolutes (beating someone up is ALWAYS wrong, taking a life is ALWAYS wrong, damaging someone's property is ALWAYS wrong, etc.) simply doesn't take in account the myriad reasons that human beings do the things they do, and the reasons for committing those actions play a huge role in the way we pass moral judgement on those actions (and in turn, how we feel the urge to pass legal judgement on them). I still think that hate crime legislation has been abused, and will almost certainly continue to be abused, and I think that needs to be called out for what it is, but the answer to that problem is not to do away with hate crime legislation all together. I think there is a solid legal precedent for its existence and continued practise, and I think it holds a vital place both in society and in criminal law.
Now it's your turn. Hate crimes: vital protection for minorities, or fascist thought police legislation?
