March 27, 2008...1:13 pm
Ed Morrissey, uneven sentences for similar crimes
I was reading this post by Ed and it got me thinking. The post is about Mumia Abu-Jamal getting his sentence overturned. In there, he writes:
Maybe they should consider letting Mumia rot. I’m not a fan of the death penalty, but one application where it makes sense is when someone murders a police officer, especially for no particular reason. That act strikes at the heart of the community and constitutes an attack on civilization, and if the penalty got applied equally in all such situations, I could support it. (emphasis mine)
So from what I understand, if I kill someone, my sentence should be different if that person is a police officer rather than a cook or a construction worker. I don’t necessarily mind that logic. Sometimes, it’s not just about the basic story (someone was killed), but it’s also about the details of the story (that someone was a police officer, that someone was a politician, etc.).
But, if you don’t mind that logic, watch out, because you are conceptually endorsing hate crime legislation. With hate crime legislation, it’s never about the basic story (you attacked someone), it’s also about who you attacked (you attacked a Muslim, a Jew, someone Black, etc.).
Ed also signs on to the why (intent). In the Mumia case, Ed seems to say that a crime with no intent is particularly bad. Again, once you open the door to that kind of logic, the intent behind what is called a hate crime becomes a valid criteria.
6 Comments
March 27, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“Hate crimes” legislation has more to do with what a person was supposedly thinking or feeling at the time of said crime.
Morrissey’s not suggesting separate crimes based on intent, but rather a separate penalty for killing someone whose job it is to protect society. Perhaps that’s an arguable point, but I don’t think it’s equal to “hate crimes” statutes.
March 27, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I agree Ed doesn’t go there. But the point is that he is willing to give different punishments for murders that are all intentional.
A lot of time, one argument that is raised when criticizing hate crime legislation is that the punishment for equivalent crimes is different and that this unequal treatment is unfair.
Ed is proposing the same thing here. Same crime (murder), but different punishment because
1- the person was a cop (special category)
2- there was no reason (this IS the intent/feeling/thinking portion)
March 28, 2008 at 12:14 am
Well, murder sentences are different all over the country anyway. Twenty years in one state could be life in another. . Hate crime legislation–and the problem many have with it–is about the charge more than the punishment.
I believe the punishment for killing a police officer is already generally tougher anyway.
March 28, 2008 at 8:43 am
I have a feeling there will soon be some hate crime charge that will make its way to the front page of Hot Air or MichelleMalkin (two of the sites I read a lot). Let’s see if any one brings up the argument this argument…
March 28, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I gotta agree with you here. When he uses the phrase, “That act strikes at the heart of the community and constitutes an attack on civilization” it is easy to put “gay” “black” “Jewish” or whatever other word in front of “community and, bingo, you got yourself a hate crime.
Ed’s reasoning on the DP is hard for me to follow, but maybe thats because he’s Catholic and his religious beliefs enter into the mix. I say if we’re gonna give the state the power to kill it’s own citizens, then they damn well better be sure they got the right person, and it must be for an offense so outrageous that it is merited. Of course, who decideds what merits it? Well, like someone once said about pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” That works for me.
March 28, 2008 at 9:12 pm
As you might have guessed, I am against the death penalty, but like you, I think it makes sense to have varying punishment depending on the outrageousness of an offense.
Leave a Reply