There are several “Viewpoints” columns, prompted by the assault last month, on whether the state’s hate-crime laws should include “sexual preference” too. I was asked to write about it, too. An excerpt from my comments:
As the laws stand now, the assailants would already face heightened sentencing because of aggravating factors. After all, they “joined with more than one person in committing the offense” (No. 2 on the list). Furthermore, even though “sexual orientation” isn’t stated explicitly, it could be considered under No. 20, which is “Any other aggravating factor reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing.”
Presumably, that catchall would preclude the state from having to rewrite the statutes in case an assault like the one on Franklin Street took place and the victim was beaten for being too fat, whistling, wearing funny clothes or talking like a Yankee. Surely any judge would consider attacking someone just for being gay “reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing.”
So should the state’s “hate crime” laws be expanded to include sexual preference? Preferably, the state?s “hate crime” laws would be repealed altogether, maybe replaced with greater sentencing flexibility for judges to decide on a case-by-case basis. Irrational hatred leading to crime should certainly be considered an aggravating factor deserving additional punishment.
But the statutes already make room for greater punishment for noxious criminal motivations not foreseen by the legislature. As the recent assault showed, trying to enumerate them is unsatisfactory. This ham-handed way to protect citizens from “hate” is bound to leave out some motivations. In this case, it was sexual preference; in the next, who can say?
It’s probably too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The change would have little effect other than to provide empty symbolism. So let the laws be amended.
Still, recognize that the outrage here is the assault itself ? not that the presumed motivation behind the crime hasn’t been given especial condemnation by state laws. Don’t lose sight of the real in fighting for the symbolic.
