The Tyranny of Good Intentions

On occasion, I come across a Republican who says something with which I agree. It doesn't happen very often, though, so I have to make a big deal about it. :-)

The Roseville Conservative (http://rosevilleconservative.blogspot.com) recently discussed the Children's Safety Act, a bill that just passed the House and is designed to protect children from sexual predators. Democratic Congressman John Conyers (MI) attached as an amendment to the CSA a bill known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which will add “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” to federally protected categories for purposes of hate crimes prosecution.

Congressman Conyers has been a wonderful leader as a leading critic of the PATRIOT Act but, in his quest to be the good guy, he has created more absurdity. This is what I call the tyranny of good intentions.

I can only assume that the legal concept of "hate crimes" arose during the KKK heyday. Pervasive racism in the South often meant that Blacks there were helpless against the terrorists who burned crosses, murdered indiscriminately and destroyed businesses. All white jurists and juries were not likely to prosecute Klan members so justice was largely out of reach for Black Americans. Perhaps to deter the crimes but, more likely, as a means to force the KKK terrorists to face the music in front of a judge and jury who weren't fellow Klan members, the federal government assumed jurisdiction over a category of local crimes by labeling them "hate crimes". Although the constitutionality of federalizing state crimes is suspect, the motivation behind the law, with its extra harsh sentences, is understandable.

Was there a better, more constitutional way, to bring justice to the Blacks and Jews of the South? I don't know and that is a topic for a later discussion. The point here is that the bend in the rules has created an absurdity in the law that needs to stop. Aren't all violent crimes crimes about hate? A crime is a crime. Why should the severity of the punishment depend upon the identity of the victim. As Roseville Conservative observed, "This is unfair and denies all individuals equal protection under the law. In addition, the whole concept of hate crimes is misleading. Every violent crime is an expression of hate against an individual. There is no such thing as a 'love' crime of violence."

Watch Forensic Files on Court TV sometime and you will hear heinous stories about men who murdered their wives. But, those aren't hate crimes. When a poor person robs and kills someone for their property, is that not out of hate for the upper class? Does everyone in society now become a protected class and anything done to you because you are a particular color, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation becomes a subject for federal adjudication? It remains a mystery to me why state laws regarding vandalism, assault and murder do not suffice to cover crimes committed by crazy people, regardless of their motivations.

There is no end to this. At some point, everyone will be a minority (Whites are racial minorities in four states and counting) and will face hatred directed at them because of that minority identity. Expanding the scope of federalized crimes is not the answer and will not fix it. This is the history of humanity.

We are quickly sliding down the slippery slope and the jagged federal government consolidation rocks at the bottom look really dangerous. Someone please break our fall!