Hate crimes and other oxymorons

Iowa has a “hate crimes” law. The Iowa code, §729A.2 defines a hate crime as one of four acts,

“… committed against a person or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability…”

Those four acts are assault, arson (and related acts), criminal mischief of various sorts, and trespass. The statute increases the punishment for these acts by one degree if they are determined to be ‘hate crimes.’

I think this is ridiculous. Under this law, if someone assaults me because I am a brown man of mixed African, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander descent, they will receive a stiffer punishment than if they assault my white neighbor because he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The crime is the same; my neighbor and I (hypothetically) both got assaulted. But Iowa law somehow makes the assault against me more egregious than the same assault against my neighbor.

Assault, arson, criminal mischief, and trespass are already crimes. Iowa’s hate crime statute merely adds extra penalties to acts already punishable under existing law. This causes the prosecution to focus on motive rather than the act itself. The lines can become blurry because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether bias was the motive. As a result, offenders may receive different sentences for the same crime. Assigning a stiffer penalty for assaulting me than for assaulting my white neighbor seems to suggest that the system values my safety more than his.

Let’s look at a real case from last December where Iowa’s law was used to increase a charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. Every year, multiple groups set up displays in the Iowa Capitol. Last year, among the various displays set up at the Iowa Capitol—including the capitol Christmas tree, a Nativity scene by the Thomas More Society, a banner from the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers, and a display by the Freedom from Religion Foundation—it was the Satanic Temple of Iowa's exhibit that captured the most attention.

The Satanic Temple set up a display that included a statue of Baphomet, a goat-headed figure, and an altar surrounded by candles. After news of the display spread, Michael Cassidy, a former congressional candidate from Mississippi, tore down and beheaded the statue of Baphomet. Cassidy was initially charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief, a serious misdemeanor. Later, the charge was increased to third-degree criminal mischief under Iowa’s hate crimes law. This case is easy, Cassidy’s public statements clearly indicate that his motive was based on religion.

The trouble is that identifying illegal actions is simple; determining motives – not so much. For example, just outside Cedar Rapids there is a farm with a statue of a golden pig near the road. If I were to drive up and knock the golden pig off its base, would that be a hate crime? The answer is, “It depends!”

If I did it because I hate pork (I don’t actually hate pork, I especially love a good pork belly!) it would not rise to the level of a hate crime. Yes it’s motivated by hate (of pork) but pork is not protected under the statute.

I sometimes joke that the golden pig is offensive to all three major Abrahamic religions. Idols are offensive to Christianity, Islam and Judaism and pigs are unclean to many Muslims and Jews. So, if I did it because I saw it as an idol would it be a hate crime? Probably not, since my action would not be related to the farmer’s religion or association with religion. I (hypothetically) see it as an idol, but I don’t think the farmer sees it as an idol (I really don’t!)

However, if I did it because I thought the farmer had erected the statue as a form of worship (rather than to advertise his business), then my actions would be a hate crime.

If I did it as an initiation prank, it would not be a hate crime. Unless the organization putting me through the initiation saw this as a symbol of the farmer’s religion. Then it might be a hate crime.

The common point in all these what ifs is that in each case I destroyed someone else’s property. The motivations may be different but the result is the same, it is a crime and should be punished as such.

I understand the purpose behind hate crime laws. It is to reduce bigotry and show that, as a society, we will not stand for such prejudices. On the other hand, the correlation between the adoption of hate crime laws in Iowa and the occurrence of such crimes is tenuous. Hate crimes are not reported reliably or consistently by law enforcement. Likewise, our courts often engage in negotiations that allow defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges while some may be dropped altogether.

Let’s stop trying to legislate morality and focus on legislating moral behavior!

David Chung is a Gazette editorial fellow. david.chung@thegazette.com