Thought Crime
By Anonymous
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's statement on hate crime, January 1998: "Last year,
President Clinton brought together law enforcement experts, community leaders and hate
crime victims to highlight the need for every American to get involved in eradicating the
cycle of prejudice and violence. . . . But we want to do more. The Justice Department has
jurisdiction over federal hate crimes based upon race, color, religion and national origin.
But the federal hates crime statutes do not permit us to investigate or prosecute most
offenses motivated by a victim's disability, their gender, or their sexual orientation."
The U.S. Senate is currently [24Jul98] holding hearings on the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy and Arlen Specter. This act would expand
the definition of hate crimes, so that it would also include bias-motivated violence against
women, the disabled, gays and lesbians. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr., a co-sponsor of the
new act, said, "This legislation sends a clear message that hate crimes against any
minority group cannot be tolerated. By making it a federal crime, those who commit hate
crimes will be subject to swift and consistent punishment throughout the country."
That seems reasonable, doesn't it? If a crime is committed out of malice against
minorities, shouldn't that be regarded as worse than other crimes and the penalty cranked
up a few extra notches?
Think before you answer! The premise behind hate crime as a special category is based
on at least two assumptions that may not sit too well, if you consider them rationally,
rather than with your gut:


Assumption One: Crimes are either more or less serious, depending on the
thoughts and feelings of those who commit them.
Assumption Two: Government should be able to penalize citizens for how they
think.
If Assumption One is true, than several factors must come into play to make it work.
Judges and juries must not only determine whether the accused committed the crime, they
must also decide – beyond a reasonable doubt – the mental processes that led to the
crime. Then they must adjust the penalty, according to the accused's reasoning and
beliefs.
If Assumption Two is true, why should government wait for an actual crime to be
committed? If people can be punished for unsanctioned opinions, why not simply make
hate illegal and penalize those who show any evidence of it? Why not fine those who
sneer at persons of color at the grocery checkout? Why not put men who tell mean jokes
about women in jail for a night. Shouldn't homeowners who slam the door when religious
missionaries come calling be required to do community service? Wouldn't everybody be
much safer if the police arrested anybody who expressed a strong dislike against any
minority – that is, anybody? (After all, if women have minority status, we all do.)
Why not simply legislate against Thoughtcrime? If that word rings only a faint bell in
your head, then your last exposure to George Orwell's book 1984 was probably in high
school. You may want to pick up a copy of it again, soon.