The meaning of 'hate.' (criticism of Hate Crimes Statistic Act)

CONGRESS passed, and President Bush is expected to sign, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which would require the Federal Government to enumerate crimes inspired by "hate." What is "hate" in this context? Nothing so routine as the sentiment of, say, a jealous husband, or a woman scorned. It is, in fact, a technical term meaning antagonism based on such categories as race, religion, and "sexual orientation."

Crimes of violence inspired by such emotions are indeed vile and should be punished severely. But the proposed legislation goes beyond that and is fraught with problems.

The idea of compiling federal statistics on motivation is silly to begin with. For every clear-cut case of Klan violence, there will be thousands of cases of black-on-white crime in which it isn't easy to say where lust or greed ends and "hate" begins. The delicacies of motivation are best left to the juries that convict and the judges who sentence. They would surely look with special disfavor on malicious attacks on strangers. But mass categorizing in these matters is impossible.

Worse, the attempt at categorization tells society that some murders and beatings, and therefore some victims, are more important than others. Indeed, Congress's passion over ideologically disapproved crime is inversely proportional to its concern about the wider crime problem that keeps a large fraction of the population in daily terror. By assuring selected victims of its concern, it is telling the rest of us that we must look out for ourselves. It can do nothing very much about crime in general, and will not try.

If only Congress hated crime as much as it hates "hate."