Debating whether actual hatred has to be involved in a “hate crime”.
Last night I was cruising the NY Times website and ran across Michael Brick’s coverage of a rather interesting issue: the case of three muggers who were directly responsible for the death of gay man Michael J. Sandy after they picked him as an easy target for robbery because he was gay and presumably less likely to resist. Was this actually a hate crime targeting the victim out of animosity caused by his sexual orientation, or a crime of victimization where his sexuality was only incidental to his identification as an easy target?
To Commit a Hate Crime, Must the Criminal Truly Hate the Victim? - NY Times
[...]The crime in question was the killing of Michael J. Sandy, 29, a gay man who was lured to a parking area in Sheepshead Bay last October, beaten and chased into traffic. He later died in the hospital.
Prosecutors have said a group of young men contacted Mr. Sandy through an online gay chat room, selecting him as a robbery victim in the belief that a gay man would be unwilling or unable to put up a fight and unlikely to report the crime.
The defendants — John Fox, 20; Ilya Shurov, 21; and Anthony Fortunato, 21 — have been charged not just with murder, but with murder under the state Hate Crimes Act of 2000, which provides longer prison sentences for crimes motivated “in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.”
This…is a tricky issue. On one hand I could agree with a statement made in the full article, saying that it was a crime of opportunity and not of hatred, as distasteful as the idea might sound. The defendants didn’t kill him because he was gay; they targeted him because of a belief in stereotypes about gays, and his murder was an unfortunate result of an already malicious crime going even more terribly wrong. There was no active homophobia involved in the murder, and so it wasn’t a hate crime. Belief in stereotypes doesn’t constitute hatred; it constitutes ignorance with possible but not definite prejudice. I know dozens of straight people who actively support and encourage gay rights and freedoms, and yet who still believe some of the most asinine stereotypes and have to be gently trained and educated out of them.
On the other hand, the rest of my brain is screaming, “This is murder in the second degree. Forget dispensing sentences based on whether or not there was hatred involved, and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.”
That’s my problem with these kinds of trials and these kinds of questions. Sure, they’re great for intellectual fodder. Sure, I think that as long as we have hate crime legislation, the distinction is important to set a precedent. But in the real application I just can’t forget that a man is dead and people are debating sentencing his killers based on how they felt about the victim.
Forget that the victim was gay, for a moment. Look at the basic facts: the defendants deliberately conspired to lure Sandy with criminal intent, based on a perceived weakness that made him a more ideal target. In the course of robbing him, they caused grievous injuries which directly resulted in Sandy’s death. Thus they are responsible for his murder, even if murder was not their original intent. Regardless, a man is dead as a result of their criminal activities.
For that, in my opinion, they should receive the maximum sentence allowable, with negotiations of time served debatable only based on good behavior while behind bars. Forget the hate crime legislation. The distinction of whether to prolong the sentence may matter in the case of lesser crimes; if they were just on trial for his robbery but Sandy still lived, I’d say sure, go ahead and call it a hate crime, as that fits the definition of the crime being motivated at least substantially, if not wholly, by a prejudiced belief. But when it crosses that final line to murder, how the murderer felt about their victim(s) should not be a factor in the length of their sentence. Crimes of passion, crimes of hate - both can take a life, and all should be punished equally and to the fullest extent.
I do believe that a distinction should be made regarding crimes motivated by prejudice and hatred, particularly in making people understand that it is not in any way allowable to act against others based on their personal prejudices. But I think sometimes we get so wrapped up in making a public outcry about who’s being discriminated against and why…that we forget to look at things at the basic human level.
I don’t know Michael Sandy from the guy in front of me in the check-out line at Wal-Mart; his death isn’t a personal loss to me. But regardless of that I’d rather think of him as a human being whose life was unduly taken from him, a life with the same value as any other, rather than as a trophy in a debate regarding what does and does not constitute a hate crime. I think his murderers should be punished with that in mind; gay or straight, male or female..we’re all people, when that first shovel-full of dirt goes in. Isn’t that what those hate crime laws are about? Punishing criminals for treating their victims as if their difference makes them somehow less than other human beings? Think about it in reverse: if they had attacked an older woman just because she might be weaker and more vulnerable, would they receive a lesser sentence, thus meaning that her life had less value than that of a recognized minority?
No matter what they decide, in this case or in any other in which the line is not so clear-cut, it isn’t going to bring Sandy or any past or future victims back. And I sincerely doubt that it’s going to prevent a recurrence, sadly enough. Honestly, the question doesn’t matter, and I don’t care if it makes me unpopular for saying so. Murder is murder. Treat it as such, without all the pretty trappings involved.
And regardless of who they killed, or why…I say lock them up, and throw away the damned key.
michael j. sandy, hate crimes, hate crime legislation, murder, john fox, ilya shurov, anthony fortunato, justice jill konviser-levine, seth lieberman, gerald di chiara, homophobia
June 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Think about it in reverse: if they had attacked an older woman just because she might be weaker and more vulnerable, would they receive a lesser sentence, thus meaning that her life had less value than that of a recognized minority?
Actually, no. As even the current hate crime legislation deals with age and gender, it stands to reason that if targeting a gay man because his orientation makes him “unlikely to fight back” is a hate crime, so is targeting an older woman for the same reason. Or targeting a Quaker or other member of a non-violent religion. Or a mentally-disabled child.
Of course, that complicates things even more. Are we willing to punish those who choose “weak” targets more than those who do not? Is it “more okay” to attack someone in a “fair” fight? Should we trying to make these distinctions with hate crime legislation, or is it a separate issue? It’s an issue that needs work, I think.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
True. The old woman thing was a bad example and the reason I shouldn’t write at 5 a.m. with no sleep. I think someone else in the article used the old woman example, and I followed their lead instead of having the sense to think that through for myself. The point I was trying to make still stands, though: if they chose someone who wasn’t included under the hate crime laws, would they then get a lighter sentence since killing someone based on a hate crime demands a harsher sentence? And would that then devalue the life of the victim?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
[...] note: Check out fellow 451 Press bloggers Lyndsey D’Arcangelo and Adrien-Luc Sanders at their respective websites, Lez Keep It Real and Pride and Opinions. Posted in General [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 6:43 am
[...] me another one. by Adrien-Luc Sanders Back in June, we looked at the case of Michael J. Sandy, a gay man who died as the direct result of the actions of a group of men who targeted him through [...]