Crime & Punishment

[rowyn]

I've never liked the idea of "hate crime" legislation. Of course, that's not because I think it's okay to beat someone up for being gay or Muslim or transgendered or whatever. It's that I don't see it as worse to beat someone up because of the group they belong to than it is to beat them up "because I felt like it".

"No, I'm an equal opportunity thug. I just like maiming people."

"Oh, well, that's better than doing it because of the group they represent. We won't punish you as harshly as we would someone who only did that to transvestites."

...

The motive in a crime does matter; it's one of the elements that predicts how dangerous the criminal is likely to be in the future. And maybe hate criminals really are worse than other kinds of criminals, that they poison society more than the actions of other kinds of sadists and thugs do. There's an argument to be made for that. People change their behavior somewhat out of fear of random crime -- not jogging alone at night, or avoiding dangerous neighbors. But people who fear persecution change their behavior a lot more, because they can predict that holding hands or kissing their SO in public will increase their chances of being physically harmed. That's much worse.

So maybe the important thing in singling out hate crimes for legislation is not that this particular criminal act is worse, per se, but that it has such a poisonous effect on society that it's more important that it be stamped out than that random crime be stopped.

I do know there's another category of crime that does bother me more than other sorts, but that no one ever suggests legislating. Call it a "violation of trust" crime. The kind where criminals wait by the side of a highway, pretending their car broke down. Then when someone stops to help, they mug that person. Or people who knock on doors and ask to use the phone so they can get inside and rob the house.

Those specific ones are a lot rarer in the age of cellphones, because it's rarer that someone in trouble really wouldn't be able to call for help. But I'm sure there are other kinds that have taken their place. I hate these kinds more than burglars who rob your house while you're at work, or people who steal cars out of parking lots or whatever. Because when your house gets broken into because your lock isn't very good, you might think "maybe I should get a bolt for the door" or "maybe I should get a security system".

But when someone victimizes you because you were nice enough to offer help to a stranger, you think "maybe I shouldn't help strangers."

And I really hate the lesson that teaches.

Comments

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

And then, there is the mindset where, upon hearing of such a crime, the listener dismisses the victim as foolish for trusting a stranger.

Yes, I seriously hate the lesson that teaches, too.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I hate crime that's inefficient.

Person hates other person and kills them, well that's bad. But the point of the killing was to have the other person dead, so at least it makes sense.

Person wants other person's shoes and kills them, that's HORRIBLE! There were much better ways of getting the shoes than that.

[dajagr.livejournal.com]

A lot of the Nigerian scams are related to the violation of trust, although they also often play on people's greed. Still, there's usually the angle of "I need your help to get this money out of the country so that it will be kept out of the hands of a corrupt government/assigned to its rightful owner." And on a smaller scale, there's always the question of giving money to beggars: "Is this person going to use this to keep fed and try to find a job, or is this going into alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs that will just perpetuate the situation?"

People are still more than willing to prey on people's trust—and, as Jordan pointed out above, laugh at you for being so "naïve" as to reach out your hand in trust to someone in need. :/

Actually...

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

thought provoking entry. Actually, I'm not sure I like hate crimes stuff, either, and you'd think as a "beneficiary" I'd appreciate it (wry look)...but mostly because of three things (one which you mentioned)

(1) measuring feelings is messy and inconsistent and our laws should stay clear of it when possible

(2) I don't like focusing on punishment instead of prevention. It gives people a warm, cheap, paternalistic glow "we couldn't stop you from getting hurt, but we can avenge you!" well, thanks. Maybe I wouldn't have been in a bad part of town if I'd had a job because employers would hire me. The economic violence of the employer's discrimination really was a proximate facilitative factor. And yes, I know policing discrimination is _even messier_. In good times, its barely necessary, in bad times it will just stir ill feelings.

So I think we should take the radical measure of increasing benefits and career training supports for unemployed minorities. It sends a simple message to employers "in a given area, if minority participation in the work force is low (after auditing their efforts to find work), y'all will pay higher taxes until you're less discriminatory, to cover the costs of helping these people have a liveable life." (though I think upgrading dominant language proficiency, or other basic, remedible skill gaps would have to be a condition of getting such aid.) As long a the benefits are still inferior to working, it shouldn't be a huge moral hazard.

(I mean, people don't seem to grasp what a radical difference ever $100.00 per month in income makes. an increase from $600 to $900.00 per month for "regular" disability in Canada is a 50% increase in benefits that has a 200% increase in "resources beyond barely-enough-food-to-live+shelter". (I think some rigorous studies on "moral hazard" levels has to be done, too. The same reasoning applies to the unappreicated impact of another $200-300/mo because of working full time instead of being on benefits. I think this "moral hazard" stuff is largely a myth. Nearly everyone who can work does want to work. The sheer social stigma of being jobless is nearly as bad as the grinding poverty. I think the cost of detering the "moral hazard risks" is higher than its worth. Because people truly needing help who are burdened for the sake of deterring such "leeches".) )

(3) I think if a community agrees whole heartedly with hate crimes laws, then they're not really necessary, because there shouldn't be any hate crimes then. If there is a substantial minority who disagree with this norm, using the courts to try and slap their hands harder for the same physical crime is just going to foster an us. vs. them mentality. I'm not sure what's the best way to change attitudes, but I don't think making people think the high courts have a personal grudge against them is the way.

But as an aside, I don't agree with the "general" versus "targetted" violence theory. It is too much like the Texas (and other jurisdictions) laws about "Fighting words" or "reduced time in prison for killing people caught in the act of adultry". That is, that we legitimate the loss of control "It was just too much". I admit, being kind of cold blooded, perhaps I'm wrong and these are bona fide grounds and cannot be trained out of people. As a Jew-in-process, I want to think that the Covenant isn't a pipe dream in supporting my bias here. I want to assume that people CAN be taught not to kill or beat each other on impulse. "It is not too hard for you..." as it says of the whole thing in Deuteronomy....

...as an addenda on a tangent there

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

Really, anti poverty measures need to be rethought and enhanced across the board. No one seems to have studied why these things aren't working out. But I think drawing attention to key taxpayers (big corporate ones, large "small businesses" anyway) that "you're paying some of your taxes because its clear you're discriminating against people" as long as the data is solid...might help. (though I might be totally off in my reading of things here)

[wildcard-47.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree.

It's hard enough to believe that people are inherently good as is, but if someone were to take advantage of another person's generosity/good nature, that act would just seal the coffin on the entire line of positive thought.

Like you said, no one wants to be thought of as "naive" for trusting a stranger in need. It's actually quite sad....