Why I Hate "Hate Crime" Laws

I was a cop on the street when the hate crime bills came into effect and memos from on high came down as to how they wanted us to pay special attention to it. I was instinctively against it on principle.

I initiated one hate crime charge from the street. Most all of the charges came from higher up in the chain. My partner and I were assigned to a 4 block stretch that included several bars. Our beat was formed to deal with the special problems in that stretch of land. I am proud to say that the special beat is still alive and well 20 years later. I digress. Anyway, it was then what could be described as a pretty rednecked area. Blacks ventured in to the neighborhood at their own risk. Not much different from areas of the city where whites dared venture. Such is life. One of the bars was the quasi-headquarters of a notorious local biker gang. Part of our job was to give them some personal attention. One young biker became an overt public threat from the day he was initiated. He went from being a long-time, well known burglar to a violent criminal overnight. He was the worst kind of bully and the leaders of the gang eventually lost control of their power as he lost control of himself. He was truly an equal opportunity abuser. People were justifiably afraid to press charges against him. We did what we could to make his life miserable, but he was on a determined date with fate.

One night, right down the street from the bar, this guy was sitting on a porch with a friend when a black guy came walking past accompanied by a white woman. Words were exchanged before the black guy was beaten down and kicked by our problem boy. The attackers stated that they didn't want him walking with a white woman in "their" neighborhood. In this case I decided to use the hate crime law as a tool to use against him. I arrested and booked him under the hate crime in addition to the felonious assault. Was it fair? Was it right? The legislature said it was. So I used it to my advantage. I don't know how that played out in court. I imagine he plea bargained and was convicted. It didn't go to trial.

A couple years down the road, this monster ended up killing a black guy in a fight over a pool game at that same bar. I had moved on to another beat by that time. Not long after, I was subpeonaed and testified against him at his murder trial. The focus of my testimony had to do with the hate crime report that I wrote in the earlier instance. He was convicted and I believe he probably received a harsher sentence because of my testimony. Great story, right? Do I feel good about my involvement? Yes and no. Yes, he is an evil character. Every day he spends in prison is a safer day for the city. He decided his destiny long before his ultimate crime. No, I don't feel proud of the hate crime involvement. As I see it, he was all about hate. In my opinion, knowing him so well, race was a secondary factor in both the beating and the homicide. Race was an excuse alright in the beating on the street. But that could have been and should have been an aggravating factor without a special law. In the case of the bar fight, he had been in countless fights. He was built like a tank and he loved to beat people up. It just so happened that the guy who died from one of his beatings happened to be black. As I recall, the victim hit his head on the table or on the floor. Death did not come from any "extra" hits that could be construed as "racial" hits. I doubt that this had much to do with color. David Duke would be in jeopardy of a beating by playing pool with this monster. Yet the past came back to bite him on the backside, with a hate crime tag added on.

A crime is a crime is a crime, yet all crimes are unique. Police should investigate each incident fully and report in full. Any time you can define motive, that is great. No decent cop edits out determined motives. Race, color, creed, sexual orientation, shirt color, mother-in-law status {DOH!} or favorite sports team. It doesn't matter. Report it.

Then comes the charging process. Motive always plays a part. Lack of a motive is as important a factor as any. Many motives are mitigating. The charging officer presents the case to the prosecutor and motive is a prime factor in determining whether to or how to charge. So far there isn't a problem that I can see if the law is followed.

Then it comes down to the judge and jury. If hate was a determined factor, a prosecutor should be more than happy to present this to the court or in plea bargaining in as vivid a way possible. It only helps the case.

Finally, if convicted the judge, ideally, has the power to look at all the factors and use the law and his own wisdom to adjudicate fairly. Fair means equal protection and equal responsibility. Washington and/or the given state capitol doesn't need to tell a wise judge that when someone, anyone, is murdered and then symbolically humiliated that a social crime has been committed. A public outrage, an attack on civilized society merits and almost always results in a stiffer sentence.

Ergo, if the law runs it's course equally, there is absolutely no reason to categorize crime congressionally. If it ain't broke.....
Where and when the system fails to uphold the law, the federal government is there to step in. The most recent incident was in Georgia where the prosecutor seemed to go out of his way to stifle the Michael Vick related charges. Vick and company are now facing more serious and widespread federal charges, along with a much more powerful prosecution team. Along with this, I expect the prosecutor, Mr Poindexter, a cartoon character in his own right, will be scrutinized by the feds, and action could be forthcoming against him personally, or against his office to correct the failure to exercise equal protection.
It isn't going to be a perfect world anytime soon. But the laws are already in place to deal with "hate crimes."

If a federal hate crime is needed in places, that indicates there is a bigger problem locally. A cancer that is temporarily sedated, not treated by this law. Fix the damn problem. Win the war, not one battle and out. Equal protection should be a no-brainer.

This essay was inspired by a review titled "Tolerance - Acceptance - Protected Classes - Equal Protection" by an exceptional writer, Paul Savage.
http://www.epinions.com/content_5068595332/s_~na#ow