Thinking About Diversity: Race, Class, and GenderHate Crime Laws: Should We PunishAttitudes as Well as Actions?On a cool October evening, nineteen-year-old Todd Mitchell,an African American, was standing with some friends in frontof their apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. They hadjust seen the film Mississippi Burning and were fuming overa scene that showed a white man beating a young black boywhile he knelt in prayer.“Do you feel hyped up to move on some white people?”asked Mitchell. Minutes later, they saw a young white boywalking toward them on the other side of the street. Mitchellcommanded, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” Thegroup swarmed around the youngster, beating him bloody and leaving him on the ground in a coma. The attackers tookthe boy’s tennis shoes as a trophy.Police soon arrested the teenagers and charged themwith the beating. Mitchell went to trial as the ringleader, andthe jury found him guilty of aggravated battery motivated byracial hatred. Instead of the usual two-year sentence, Mitchellwent to jail for four years.As this case illustrates, hate crime laws punish a crimemore severely if the offender is motivated by bias againstsome category of people. Supporters make three argumentsin favor of hate crime legislation. First, as noted in the textdiscussion of crime, the offender’s intentions are alwaysimportant in weighing criminal responsibility, so consideringhatred an intention is nothing new. Second, victims of hatecrimes typically suffer greater injury than victims of crimeswith other motives. Third, a crime motivated by racial or otherbias is more harmful because it inflames the public moodmore than a crime carried out, say, for money.Critics counter that while some hate crime cases involvehard-core racism, most are impulsive acts by young people.Even more important, critics maintain, hate crime laws are athreat to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. Hatecrime laws allow courts to sentence offenders not just for theiractions but also for their attitudes. As the Harvard Universitylaw professor Alan Dershowitz cautions, “As much as I hatebigotry, I fear much more the Court attempting to control theminds of its citizens.” In short, according to critics, hate crimestatutes open the door to punishing beliefs rather than behavior.In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the sentencehanded down to Todd Mitchell. In a unanimous decision, thejustices stated that the government should not punish anindividual’s beliefs. But, they reasoned, a belief is no longerprotected when it becomes the motive for a crime.What Do You Think?1. Do you think crimes motivated by hate are more harmfulthan those motivated by greed? Why or why not?2. Do you think minorities such as African Americans shouldbe subject to the same hate crime laws as white people?Why or why not?3. Do you favor or oppose hate crime laws? Why?
Thinking About Diversity: Race, Class, and Gender
Hate Crime Laws: Should We Punish
Attitudes as Well as Actions?
On a cool October evening, nineteen-year-old Todd Mitchell,
an African American, was standing with some friends in front
of their apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. They had
just seen the film Mississippi Burning and were fuming over
a scene that showed a white man beating a young black boy
while he knelt in prayer.
“Do you feel hyped up to move on some white people?”
asked Mitchell. Minutes later, they saw a young white boy
walking toward them on the other side of the street. Mitchell
commanded, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” The
group swarmed around the youngster, beating him bloody
and leaving him on the ground in a coma. The attackers took
the boy’s tennis shoes as a trophy.
Police soon arrested the teenagers and charged them
with the beating. Mitchell went to trial as the ringleader, and
the jury found him guilty of aggravated battery motivated by
racial hatred. Instead of the usual two-year sentence, Mitchell
went to jail for four years.
As this case illustrates, hate crime laws punish a crime
more severely if the offender is motivated by bias against
some category of people. Supporters make three arguments
in favor of hate crime legislation. First, as noted in the text
discussion of crime, the offender’s intentions are always
important in weighing criminal responsibility, so considering
hatred an intention is nothing new. Second, victims of hate
crimes typically suffer greater injury than victims of crimes
with other motives. Third, a crime motivated by racial or other
bias is more harmful because it inflames the public mood
more than a crime carried out, say, for money.
Critics counter that while some hate crime cases involve
hard-core racism, most are impulsive acts by young people.
Even more important, critics maintain, hate crime laws are a
threat to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. Hate
crime laws allow courts to sentence offenders not just for their
actions but also for their attitudes. As the Harvard University
law professor Alan Dershowitz cautions, “As much as I hate
bigotry, I fear much more the Court attempting to control the
minds of its citizens.” In short, according to critics, hate crime
statutes open the door to punishing beliefs rather than behavior.
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the sentence
handed down to Todd Mitchell. In a unanimous decision, the
justices stated that the government should not punish an
individual’s beliefs. But, they reasoned, a belief is no longer
protected when it becomes the motive for a crime.
What Do You Think?
1. Do you think crimes motivated by hate are more harmful
than those motivated by greed? Why or why not?
2. Do you think minorities such as African Americans should
be subject to the same hate crime laws as white people?
Why or why not?
3. Do you favor or oppose hate crime laws? Why?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
