Content provided in partnership with
Crimes du Jour
National Review, Sept 13, 1999 by Midge Decter
Group-think comes to the law.
Midge Decter is a writer and editor living in New York.
Many, if not most, Americans have a somewhat peculiar relation to the issue of crime. They deplore it, naturally, and grow upset and sometimes even seriously alienated at the idea that they are living in a country that seems to be positively beset with lawlessness. At the same time, they are powerfully drawn to the romance of the criminal- witness the way they reward entertainers (Francis Ford Coppola comes to mind) for such achievements as polishing the glamour of the Mafia.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
And if they deplore the high rate of crime in their midst, it must be said that, for the past several decades, many of them have also been busy excusing it. Such mitigating factors as poverty, insanity, drug abuse, and the sorrows of racial discrimination have been joined by "recaptured" memories of childhood sexual abuse as grounds for demanding that both the public and the courts be more forgiving of offenders. (As an old brilliant lyric by Stephen Sondheim has it, "I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.")
Nor does the confusion end there. Youngsters who are not yet 16 may commit acts of gross violence and remain under the protection of a family court that seals their records forever, while an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania who calls three noisy black students "water buffaloes" is deemed by school authorities worthy of expulsion. (True, expulsion is not imprisonment, but in the case in question, it required just as much legal talent and passion to overcome.)
But most bewildering of all is the fact that, while the rate of crime has dropped impressively, certain very active people have been busy creating new categories of crime. Take the case of the sex crimes newly defined and publicized by the feminists. According to the definition of the felony called "date rape," if a young woman climbs naked into the bed of a young man with the intention of spending the night, on the following morning, she is entitled to cry "rape" and have the boy arrested. For though she was naked and had agreed to spend the night, he had no right to "take advantage" of her. An even more significant, because far more widespread, recently invented crime against women is that called "sexual harassment." Millions upon millions of dollars have changed hands over the declared distaste of a number of women working in corporate offices or law firms for unwanted approaches, whether physical or merely verbal. (It seems that nowadays women may complete law or business school without learning to thwart unwanted advances- something every working-class girl is taught at her mother's knee.)
But if laws criminalizing male advances to women lend a whole new enrichment to the definition of criminal behavior, what are we to say of the idea of passing laws whose intent is to criminalize thoughts and feelings? For such an idea appears to be at the top of the agenda now. Moreover, many of the very same people who once tried so hard to soften the hearts of their fellow Americans toward certain crimes on grounds of the mental or emotional state of the perpetrator seem today to be leaders of the push for special laws against what they call "hate crimes."
The term "hate crimes" does not, of course, signify what the advocates of such laws actually have in mind, for after all many kinds of crime are committed in the deepest hatred-matricide, patricide, fratricide, say. A more accurate term might be group-hate crimes, which is to say, crimes committed against total strangers because they happen to be members of a particular group.
Thus the thugs who beat to death the young homosexual Matthew Shepard in Wyoming would be found guilty of having committed a hate crime. As would someone who set fire to a synagogue or church, particularly if it were a black church. As would one Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, member of a midwestern group called World Church of the Creator, who over the weekend of July Fourth this year killed a black and a Korean and wounded nine others, six of them Orthodox Jews on their way home from synagogue. And as, of course, would Buford Furrow, who a month later turned up with an assault rifle at the Jewish Community Center in a suburb of Los Angeles, shot and wounded three little kids attending the center's day school, along with two adults who were in charge of them, and later in the day shot and killed a Filipino mailman.
In addition to provoking all the old familiar cries for gun control-as if, should guns be controlled or even totally interdicted, a Buford Furrow could not get himself a van-ful of them-the attack on the center became a perfect occasion for demanding the passage of more special laws against hate crimes. So the cry went forth, in op-ed pieces and talk shows across the land: "Give us hate-crime legislation!"
The question is, What special penalty could hate-crime legislation impose upon someone like Buford Furrow? And the answer obviously is, None whatsoever. He will be tried in a federal court (for killing a government employee) and then in a California court, and in both he will clearly be sentenced to the max.
