Post by RS Davis on Nov 14, 2003 22:23:20 GMT -5
Criminal Law Should Not Be Used to Enforce Ideological Orthodoxy
By Robert W. Tracinski
Leaders from both parties--Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democrat Ted Kennedy--have
vowed to push through a new, wide-reaching federal "hate crimes" bill before the end of
the current session. A "hate crimes" law would make crimes motivated by enmity toward
blacks, gays or other protected groups into a special federal offense. The ostensible
purpose of such a law is to protect minorities from persecution. The result, however,
would be the exact opposite. Targeting those with "politically incorrect" motives
undermines the principle of objective law which undergirds our legal system's protection
of rights.
Criminal law exists to prohibit certain actions--to safeguard individuals against force
or fraud. For this purpose, there is no shortage of existing statutes. For instance, the
killer of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student from Wyoming, was charged with a
state crime.
What, then, will a "hate crimes" law add? Despite its name, it is not "hatred" as such
that the proposed law targets. After all, which crimes aren't motivated by hatred? Are
assaults and murders usually committed out of benevolence toward the victim? The real
target is the criminal's ideas. The proposed law declares that criminals motivated by a
government-designated set of intolerable ideas--racism, sexism, religious sectarianism,
anti-homosexuality--deserve special prosecution and additional punishment.
But to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of his ideas--regardless of
how despicable those ideas might be--constitutes a politicization of criminal law. Why,
for example, should a racist be prosecuted for the special crime of targeting blacks,
while the Unabomber is not subject to special prosecution for his hatred of scientists
and business executives? The only answer is that the Unabomber's ideas are considered
more "politically correct" than the racist's.
A "hate crimes" law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to "criminal
thought." It would institute the premise that the purpose of our legal system is not to
defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a
premise that should be abhorrent to a free society.
In addition, if committing a crime based on bad ideas warrants greater punishment, then
committing a crime based on "politically correct" ideas should warrant lesser
punishment. The judicial process would have to focus on the criminal's ideology, rather
than on the objective violation of his victim's rights.
The beginnings of this politicization of crime are already in place. When antiVietnam
War protesters, for example, forcibly occupied buildings and bombed laboratories in
the '60s and '70s, they were heralded as "political dissenters," deserving of special
leniency--while today, those who commit similar crimes in the name of racism are
considered deserving of special penalties.
Similarly, in recent years the left has (properly) campaigned for laws to prevent anti-
abortion protesters from harassing doctors and halting access to abortion clinics. Yet
its own protesters routinely use force--such as the occupation of timberland to prevent
logging--with no fear of special government prosecution.
Nor is the attempt to politicize the criminal law limited to the left. Several years
ago, a conservative judge suspended the sentences of two priests--arrested for
physically blocking entry to an abortion clinic--because they were motivated by "sincere
religious beliefs."
Under such a system, anything goes. The entire criminal justice apparatus can be used as
a political tool by whatever faction happens to be in power. Crimes can be whitewashed
if done for the "correct" political motives, while extra punishment can be meted out to
those with "incorrect" motives.
Where will this end? If a man convicted of an actual criminal act can be sentenced to
additional years in prison simply for his ideas--then, in logic, why can't someone be
punished solely for his ideas? Even if he has not committed a single action against
another person, why can't he be tried simply for being a "purveyor of hate"? Indeed,
this development is already foreshadowed by campus "speech codes," which bar statements
deemed "offensive" to protected groups.
The first official step on this deadly path--the creation of a special category of "hate
crimes"--should be resoundingly rejected. It is an attempt to import into America's
legal system a class of crimes formerly reserved only to dictatorships: political
crimes. Instead, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the
protection of all rights, i.e., that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for
initiating force against others--not for holding bad ideas.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Robert W. Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of *Atlas Shrugged* and *The
Fountainhead*.
Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute
This article is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and cannot be reprinted
without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We
encourage you to forward this op-ed to friends, family, associates or interested parties
who would want to receive it for these purposes only . Any reproduction of this article
must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or
redistributing this article for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org.
This article may not be forwarded to media for publication.
By Robert W. Tracinski
Leaders from both parties--Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democrat Ted Kennedy--have
vowed to push through a new, wide-reaching federal "hate crimes" bill before the end of
the current session. A "hate crimes" law would make crimes motivated by enmity toward
blacks, gays or other protected groups into a special federal offense. The ostensible
purpose of such a law is to protect minorities from persecution. The result, however,
would be the exact opposite. Targeting those with "politically incorrect" motives
undermines the principle of objective law which undergirds our legal system's protection
of rights.
Criminal law exists to prohibit certain actions--to safeguard individuals against force
or fraud. For this purpose, there is no shortage of existing statutes. For instance, the
killer of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student from Wyoming, was charged with a
state crime.
What, then, will a "hate crimes" law add? Despite its name, it is not "hatred" as such
that the proposed law targets. After all, which crimes aren't motivated by hatred? Are
assaults and murders usually committed out of benevolence toward the victim? The real
target is the criminal's ideas. The proposed law declares that criminals motivated by a
government-designated set of intolerable ideas--racism, sexism, religious sectarianism,
anti-homosexuality--deserve special prosecution and additional punishment.
But to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of his ideas--regardless of
how despicable those ideas might be--constitutes a politicization of criminal law. Why,
for example, should a racist be prosecuted for the special crime of targeting blacks,
while the Unabomber is not subject to special prosecution for his hatred of scientists
and business executives? The only answer is that the Unabomber's ideas are considered
more "politically correct" than the racist's.
A "hate crimes" law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to "criminal
thought." It would institute the premise that the purpose of our legal system is not to
defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a
premise that should be abhorrent to a free society.
In addition, if committing a crime based on bad ideas warrants greater punishment, then
committing a crime based on "politically correct" ideas should warrant lesser
punishment. The judicial process would have to focus on the criminal's ideology, rather
than on the objective violation of his victim's rights.
The beginnings of this politicization of crime are already in place. When antiVietnam
War protesters, for example, forcibly occupied buildings and bombed laboratories in
the '60s and '70s, they were heralded as "political dissenters," deserving of special
leniency--while today, those who commit similar crimes in the name of racism are
considered deserving of special penalties.
Similarly, in recent years the left has (properly) campaigned for laws to prevent anti-
abortion protesters from harassing doctors and halting access to abortion clinics. Yet
its own protesters routinely use force--such as the occupation of timberland to prevent
logging--with no fear of special government prosecution.
Nor is the attempt to politicize the criminal law limited to the left. Several years
ago, a conservative judge suspended the sentences of two priests--arrested for
physically blocking entry to an abortion clinic--because they were motivated by "sincere
religious beliefs."
Under such a system, anything goes. The entire criminal justice apparatus can be used as
a political tool by whatever faction happens to be in power. Crimes can be whitewashed
if done for the "correct" political motives, while extra punishment can be meted out to
those with "incorrect" motives.
Where will this end? If a man convicted of an actual criminal act can be sentenced to
additional years in prison simply for his ideas--then, in logic, why can't someone be
punished solely for his ideas? Even if he has not committed a single action against
another person, why can't he be tried simply for being a "purveyor of hate"? Indeed,
this development is already foreshadowed by campus "speech codes," which bar statements
deemed "offensive" to protected groups.
The first official step on this deadly path--the creation of a special category of "hate
crimes"--should be resoundingly rejected. It is an attempt to import into America's
legal system a class of crimes formerly reserved only to dictatorships: political
crimes. Instead, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the
protection of all rights, i.e., that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for
initiating force against others--not for holding bad ideas.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Robert W. Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of *Atlas Shrugged* and *The
Fountainhead*.
Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute
This article is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and cannot be reprinted
without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We
encourage you to forward this op-ed to friends, family, associates or interested parties
who would want to receive it for these purposes only . Any reproduction of this article
must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or
redistributing this article for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org.
This article may not be forwarded to media for publication.
