Hate Crime Laws

Hate crime laws are fashionable these days as another layer of laws we "need" to combat intolerance in our society. They are an outcome of social engineering minded individuals that don't recognize that laws should serve everyone.

The libertarian minded recognize that in a just society, we need to provide "equal protection", not special protection. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made that clear.

One of the earliest forms of hate crime legislation were laws that made it a capital offense to kill a police officer.

Now, I'm not in favor of killing police. In fact, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement, but doesn't that kind of law make government employed law enforcement personnel better and more protected from crime than the rest of us? I think it does.

Why only police officers? Why don't these hate crime laws extend to fire fighters, meter readers, trash collectors, and municipal, county and state employees in general? Why is it that just the police get this special protection of law?

Moreover, why don't we all get special enhanced protection?

Are police officers so much better than the rest of us that they deserve their own special law? Apparently so, and this is the kind of thinking that creates hate crime laws.

When Matthew Shepard was killed, there was a great hue and cry for hate crime laws. It was a typical American knee-jerk reaction. Forget about justice for all, we need to create laws for just a few.

Like nearly everyone else, I was appalled at the crimes committed against Matthew Shepard. A young man’s life came to a brutal end. A family was traumatized. A community was shaken. Four young people stood accused of serious crimes.

In the wake of this violence, politicians spoke out in support of legislation against “hate crime.” They suggested that enhanced penalties for targeted hate filled violence would deter future crimes. I strongly disagree.

If enhanced penalties for “hate crimes” would have be an effective deterrent, then the combined penalties for murder, kidnapping and aggravated robbery, that applied in the Matthew Shepard case, would have been sufficient to deter the perpetrators responsible for the brutal attack.

But it wasn't!

The central problem with deterring such behavior is that it requires criminals to be well informed, sensible, and risk averse. Violent criminals don’t fit this profile, so deterrence in the form of yet another law, is a merely another dream.

Violent criminals are risk averse only to the extent that justice might be visited on them immediately and with certainty. See the discussion of gun rights and self-defense.

Perpetrators of violent crimes have hatred for their victims, the community, and their own life situation. It is also common for violent criminals to purposely select their victims because of factors such as vulnerability, age, accessibility, valuables on hand, and a perception of avoidance of identification, capture and prosecution.

We don’t need more laws to give us false hope of deterring future violence. These are only instruments of self-service for politicians eager to send politically correct messages. We need to enforce the laws that serve everyone, and let the judicial system consider special circumstances in each case.

We've disgraced the memory of Matthew Shepard by allowing our official response to his murder to be political posturing. Instead, we should focus on prosecuting the accused under laws that serves us all, and demand effective solutions to the causes of violent behavior.

Only when we understand how anyone can acquire such warped values with respect to human life and liberty, can we identify effective ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future.

Amidst all the call for hate crime laws, I remember one of our legislators here in Wyoming being interviewed about the case. His comments were broadcast on the radio. He was in favor of hate crime laws, and disappointed that we didn't have any on the books. He said: "It would have been nice to be on record that we don't tolerate this kind of behavior in Wyoming."

Gee, I thought kidnapping and murder were against the law already.

A young man was murdered, and all this bozo can think of is how nice it would have been to have the law in place before the killing. That's just about the most insulting thing I can imagine anyone saying, yet most supporters of hate crime laws would probably think it was a good sentiment. You know, his heart was in the right place.

But, his mind was "out to lunch".

It's just more political posturing and symbolism. And, it's what we deserve because many of us are fooled into thinking it is somehow effective, and the rest of us stay quiet.

Learn more about the difficulties that us Libertarians have with hate crime legislation.

Done with Hate Crime Laws, take me back to Stupid Laws