Racist Opinions Are Hateful-- That Shouldn't Make Them Crimes

Hate crime laws have been in the news on multiple fronts this week.

In Washington, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened confirmation hearings on Senator Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general. Session’s approval is likely, but one argument made against him is that he opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which sexual orientation and disability protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Though they’ve been in effect since the 1990s, hate crimes statutes have always been constitutionally and morally unsound. At best they are a symbolic declaration that crimes inspired by certain types of bigotry are especially odious. At worst they are a vehicle for grandstanding prosecutors eager to make a political point. Either way, they should disturb anyone who believes criminals ought to be punished for their harmful actions, not for their ugly opinions.

To grasp how gratuitous hate crimes prosecutions can be, look no further than Dylann Roof’s case. The Charleston mass-killer is a depraved monster; the day he is put to death, America will be a better, cleaner place.

Immediately after Roof’s bloodbath, Charleston County Solicitor Scarlett Wilson charged him with nine counts of murder. She later said South Carolina would seek the death penalty, and urged that he be tried in state court first. But the state’s legitimate interest in bringing Roof to justice was muscled aside by the federal Justice Department, which emphasized its desire to make Roof’s race-hatred an explicit centerpiece of the trial. There was no danger of Roof getting away with murder. But Washington wanted to federalize the case to spotlight the defendant’s beliefs.

More