My "Hate" Is My Business

According to FBI records, 45 states and the District of Columbia have criminal statutes that add greater penalties in cases where the victim is selected because of a bias against a particular group. Generally known as "hate crime laws", they are regarded as necessary to protect members of groups most often targeted for criminal violence, usually because of race, religion or national origin. There are 32 states that have similar statutes regarding sexual orientation.

In 1993, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding these laws in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 47(1993)). The decision rejected a first amendment challenge, ruling that a criminal defendant may face penalty enhancement for the discriminatory motive of the crime, and that this is just as permissible as in civil employment discrimination cases. The decision agreed with the state that bias motivated crimes were "...more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest". It felt that these hypothetical harms (none of which actually occurred in the case) were an "adequate explanation" for the enhancement, and gave Constitutional authority "above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."

But just how impartial is this state interest? The very popularity of "hate crime" laws belies such a claim. The cases all follow a predictible outline. The media casts its glaring lights on the case and grabs the public's attention for months. Innumerable public figures stoke the controversy with inflammatory but always politically self-serving comments. Then, when the story reaches the verdict stage, it gets even greater traction from the "outrage" of the losers, in contrast with the gratification of the winners. But the most creative politicians carry it further. They'll claim that the law was still unable to eliminate these crimes, so an even stronger law is needed. Eventually, with much fanfare, yet another "bias crime" law will be posted, probably under the name of the most recent martyr.

The spectacle is often overbown, even ridiculous, but may not seem harmful. But I think it is harmful in an insidious way. There has never been a bigot who didn't think he was a victim. A bigot's violent tendencies may be channeled benignly into normal political competition, for a time, but the impulse is always there. Our culture and party politics thrive on such rivalry, as continually fueled by the media. But all that is needed is for some new and horrific act of brutality to occur, the kind ready-made for the "bigotry" label, and the feasting begins. The victim's group immediately screams for extra "hate" points to be added, and the bigots respond in kind, feeling "victimized" themselves. You see, there are always two martyrs in "hate crime" trials: the unfortunate victim, and the convicted criminal who is punished for his beliefs.

There's no way around it. This additional punishment can never be taken as impartial justice. The criminal's selection of a victim, for any reason at all, is always an internal mental occurence that involves no governmental interest unless and until it becomes actualized by overt action that leads to injury. It is sophistry to convert personal prejudices which, no matter how offensive, are part of the private citizen's identity, and therefore not an act punishable by the state, into criminal behavior that warrants separate judgment.

In our system, the mens rea, or intent to commit the act, is essential in proving guilt, but we do not ordinarily assign greater or lesser punishment because some motives are more offensive than others. While the first amendment may not explicitly forbid this, our reluctance to do it is derived from the same impulse. We recoil, chilled, as from the image of Alex in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to a chair, his eyelids stretched open by metal clamps, being forced to watch violent films to the point of suicide; ugly, yes, but so necessary to eliminate conduct deemed "unacceptable" by the government. Proponents say the punishment is the same, only longer, but it is not the same. The enhancement, being solely for the offensive thoughts of the criminal, as opposed to the conduct itself, is transformed into mortification of the spirit, with no link to justice at all.

Singing the H-1B Blues

On April 1, 2008, employers went through the annual ordeal of filing petitions for temporary work visas for skilled foreign workers in the H-1B category. They are limited to 65,000 petitions, to be effective October 1st, at the start of the fiscal year.

It is a controversial program because the employers feel competitive pressure to find these workers abroad, contending that this country simply does not have enough of them with the necessary skills.

If that is true - and I'm not ready to concede that it is - it's a depressing thought, especially as domestic unemployment is at the highest level in years.

I welcome these employers to advertise those jobs on Interpreters' Group. Our talent pool includes bi-lingual workers with all skills, not only interpreters. Please indicate if you filed an H-1B application when you register with IG to post your jobs. I intend to display them prominently on our Home Page.

An employer's FIRST job that is also listed on an H-1B will be FREE!

Who knows? You might even fill the position before October.


TO REGISTER: www.interpretersgroup.com/registered_employers_Registration.asp