Victim Impact Evidence Rule

[joreth]

I'm going to give an unpopular opinion here.

I am opposed to the very idea of "hate crimes".

I believe in justice and the safety and rights of the citizens of this country, but I believe that undue emotional impact is used as leverage in a variety of ways in our justice system.

One of these ways is the idea of "hate crimes".  I am opposed to classifying something as a "hate crime" because I do not believe there is any difference between a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his shirt and a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his skin.  The severity of the crime is what should be considered and I am appalled to think that another man's death is more important than mine simply because of his minority status; that his abuser/murderer will get a more severe punishment because his death is more symbolic than mine is.  I do understand the historical importance of bringing previously-un-cared-about crimes to a level playing field, but I think these kinds of solutions are temporary, at best, and at worst, only serve to further segregate the categories of people whose status they are designed to raise.

I also think it's a form of thought police.  A "hate crime" punishes people more severely for their thoughts, their motivation, than for their actions.  I do think there should be a distinction between "accidents" and "intentional", but why a person intended to kill or maim is, I believe, irrelevant in the justice system.  It's the killing/maiming that is important, and putting a stop to it.

Understanding why might be interesting from a sociological point of view, perhaps to better target preventative measures against crime.  But not in the punishment stage, not after the fact.  It should be wrong to kill because it's wrong to kill.  Not more wrong to kill this guy than that guy.

Related to this thought is a news article I just read regarding the "Victim Impact Evidence" rule.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-na-death11-2008nov11,0,7336659.story

What happens is that familes of a victim are allowed to show video to a jury that details the victim's life; to humanize him, and to make him more "real" for the jury.  This, I believe, has a significant impact on the jury's decision-making progress.

I do not believe it should be allowed for the family to tell the jury how important the victim was.  The victim was human.  Period.  What more needs to be said?  Showing video of the victim as a child, seeing the parents cry, hearing that the victim was an honor student, or a doctor, or somebody's mommy implies that, if the victim were not as popular, didn't have any family, didn't have any major contributions to society, than he would be less important.

What if the victim had no family to make these sentimental videos?  Should the jury then consider that he won't be missed, so the murderer didn't really do anything bad?  As tacit  points out in his recent entry, people make their decisions and their beliefs based on their emotions.  That's just what people do.  The US Justice system is supposed to be "blind", supposed to be evidence-based and as free from human emotions as possible.

Of course, we know that's not always true in practice, but that's the way it's supposed to work.  And I believe that any video or testimony that does not add to the facts of the case, that only serves to more humanize the victim is actively harming the judicial system of blind justice and evidence-based trials.  These videos are specifically designed to tug at the jurors' heartstrings, and to unfavorably bias the jury against the defendant.

They also, in my opinion, imply the assumption that not all humans are equal.  The defendant is not an equal human to the victim (remember, the trial is to decide if the defendant is guilty or not, so he may not actually be the murderer or attacker), and the victim is deserving of more empathy than other people because this victim is so loved, has achieved so much, and has the potential to impact the world to such a degree. 

The guilty should be determined guilty because he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not because the jury has an emotional response and a personal bias against some category of people the guilty falls into or because it's such a shame that this particular victim was a victim.  The punishment should be determined based on the severity of the crime, not by how worthy the victim is to receive justice.  A first-degree murder is a first-degree murder is a first-degree murder.  I am appalled that one murder is worse than another based upon the importance of the victim.  The victim is human, and that should be enough importance.

Comments

[starchy.livejournal.com]

When applied properly, hate crime statutes still punish the external realities created by those thoughts. It's still legal to hate jews, to think about hating jews, and to talk and write about hating jews. When you paint "kike" on the sign of a shop and break its windows, however, you have effectively committed two crimes: one of property damage and vandalism as it would be without the slur, and one of directly intimidating a class of people. It's not because you thought "I hate jews" while doing it, it's because your actions have that very real, additional effect. If you do this to several stores, you haven't just multiplied the value of property damage, you have committed a campaign of suppression against that community.

If the hate crime statutes become about thoughtcrime, then they are (in my view) being misapplied. What they're about, if used as intended, is the difference in the effect on outside reality between two crimes which otherwise fall under the same statutes. In the case of murder, it probably shouldn't often make much of a difference in terms of the actual sentence, which is already going to be quite severe, but in other situations it probably should have an impact. What would a burning cross be if we totally ignore context and meaning? Littering? A fire code violation?

We are in agreement that "the crime should be punished based on the severity of the crime, not the thoughts of the criminal." In many cases, however, the actual severity of a crime cannot be measured while ignoring the effect it is designed to have on the victim and that victim's community. This is not the same as VIE, either: it's the difference between attempted murder and assault.

[joreth]

We've had terrorists, we have gang violence, and we have organized crime, all of which deal with the intimidation factor that raises the severity of an act. The category of "hate crime" is unnecessary if/when these other categories are present and utilized.

I'm not suggesting we overlook the intimidation factor. I'm saying that intimidating gay people isn't worse, or even different enough to deserve its own classification, than intimidating anyone else, such as mob crime, terrorism activity, or gang violance. That the race or gender or orientation is the predominant factor rather than the actual act of violence, whether it's physical violence or emotional harm,is what bugs me.

[starchy.livejournal.com]

We've had terrorists, we have gang violence, and we have organized crime, all of which deal with the intimidation factor that raises the severity of an act. The category of "hate crime" is unnecessary if/when these other categories are present and utilized.

If hate crimes generally fell under one of these categories, you would have an excellent point. My understanding is that they rarely do, and this is a huge part of why the laws are valuable.

That the race or gender or orientation is the predominant factor rather than the actual act of violence, whether it's physical violence or emotional harm,is what bugs me.

I don't know that it is necessarily the predominant factor. But here's the thing: protected classes do need protection. The most reasonable assumption is that the rest of society and even the justice system itself is stacked against them, if only a tiny little bit in some cases. One way of trying to control for that imbalance is by saying that if you try to take advantage of it in connection with a criminal act, or if by that criminal act you increase that imbalance, the penalty will be stronger. As the original imbalance cannot be made to vanish overnight, if ever, it is important to work in safeguards against it.