The motto "Equal Justice Under Law" is inscribed above the grand entrance to the Supreme Court. Presumably these words are intended to describe what goes on inside. If the hate crimes bill adopted by the House yesterday becomes law, however, something very different will be going on.
Few people doubt that truly hideous crimes, like the murder of James Byrd (a black man chained by three white thugs to the back of a pickup truck and dragged through the streets until he died) deserve severe punishment. To me, that means the death penalty -- and at least one of Byrd's killers got exactly that, ACLU opposition to capital punishment notwithstanding.
What this shows is that we don't need a hate crimes statute to allow courts to impose punishment that will send a message. Such statutes are misguided, however, not simply because they are unnecessary, but because they eat away at the foundations of even-handed justice.
These statutes introduce identity-group politics into law, where it has no business. Its intrusion is certain to be divisive in the worst possible sense, because it sends the Orwellian message that, before the bar of justice, where all are supposed to be equal, some are more equal than others. Such legislation also Balkanizes the culture of law, telling our citizens that, depending on the politics of the moment, criminal depredations against some groups are taken more seriously by society than identical depredations against different, "less valuable" groups. We heard enough of that in the Jim Crow era. We don't need an echo of it now.
James Byrd did not deserve justice because he was a black person. He deserved justice because he was a person. For dealing with criminals and killers, that's what we know, and that's all we need to know.
Comments (1)
Thanks so much for your blog! You are a breathe of fresh air-- of calm, lucid, rational oxygen, in a world polluted by clouds of... hot air. I don't know if you look at the Volokh blog (another legal web spot), but, not surprisingly, they recently covered this same topic. I only mention it because the comments section there shows precisely what people like you are up against.
There is no rational argument in favor of the racial gerrymandering under the law that is "hate crimes" legislation. Instead, the case is basically emotional. As such, consensus is hammered out with emotion, not argument. The bottom line: if you oppose "hate crimes" legislation, your only motive for doing so is racial animosity. Well, that's too polite. It is because you are a scumbag, racist bastard. THAT is what you will be treated to by the so-called representatives of the "nice party" should you express the slightest hesitation in your support of these laws. And, THAT is why politicians of all stripes fear to stand up against this rubbish. They know it will be hurled in their faces next election cycle, and an all-too-willing press will make a nuanced rebuttal all but impossible.
I am afraid that we are entering a period of "liberal" ascendancy, aided and supported by a nakedly partisan press, where all manner of racial pandering and demagoguery (affirmative action, immigrant voting rights, reparations...) will become all too commonplace. In fact, I expect the Democratic Left will come to rely exclusively on an alliance between white liberals and various racial constituencies that they woo with the promise of legal swag.
And, sadly, your style of calm, open deliberation is going to be chased right out of the public consciousness.
Posted by Michael Sweeney | May 6, 2007 10:48 AM
Posted on May 6, 2007 10:48