There’s a phrase used a lot nowadays that really annoys me - “hate crimes.” The Virginia Tech murderer certainly committed 32 hate crimes. Aren’t ALL murders hate crimes? Unless a killing is accidental, then there is hate involved - whether it is hate for the specific victim, the victim’s religion, gender,  skin color,  sexual preference, or even the killer’s own self-hatred - most crime is about hate. Â
Why would specifying one particular crime as a “hate crime” make it more despicable? Help me understand.
Sphere: Related Content
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
That is exactly what I ask every time I hear that ridiculous expression.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
No, not all crimes are “hate” crimes. Take for example the typical behavior of congresscritters or Mass Media Podpeople. Surely their daily criminal behavior is motivated more by greed than by hate?
*heh*
Of course, murder and other crimes of violence are frequently motivated by “hate” but as often crimes of violence are motivated by greed or simple temporary anger or other motivations. That is why separating some crimes out as “hate” crimes is, well, hateful. It says that the murder of someone done for reasons of greed (robbery, inheritance, whatever) is somehow less heinous than the murder of someone because of an attitudinal issue in the perpetrator that can be characterized as “hateful”.
Then there’s the thought crime aspect. We tread very close to 1984 with the view that the thoughts a person thinks are somehow worse than the actions they take.
But really, that’s the point of this “hate crime” push: creating a class of “thought crimes”–a natural thing for people who want to exercise cradle to grave control over people’s lives. For when thoughts become crimes, only criminals will think…