Punish the crime, not the thought
May 10, 2007| By Nathaniel Ward
Liberals in Congress have proposed a broad expansion of federal “hate crime” laws that would not only create new classes of victims but also federalize various crimes now handled effectively by state and local authorities.
Such a policy, writes Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, is a terrible idea.
Hate crime laws at the federal level are dubious in the first place, he explains, since the crime itself is already illegal. “In criminal matters, what matters most is the act itself. Crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, no matter who the victim is or what the perpetrator thinks about that person.”
The proposed new law “defines ‘hate crime’ so broadly, that actual ‘hate’ isn’t even required.” Merely selecting a victim based on their membership in a protected class would be enough to trigger federal penalties. A mugger who selects a disabled old woman as his victim, Feulner argues by way of example, could fall under the auspices of the new national law.
“Should almost all violent mugging and rape prosecutions be handled by the feds?” Feulner asks.
Worse, by adding so tremendously to the federal government’s responsibilities, resources would be diverted from important work that is actually the national government’s responsibility. Such things as terrorism, organized crime, interstate scams and kidnapping would be left with depleted budgets and manpower, he writes.
“The net effect would be less security for all.”
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.