Murder is murder, no matter what the motive
Most of you have probably heard about the shooting at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, over the weekend, which left two dead and seven wounded.
The shooter, Jim D. Adkisson, entered the church during a children’s play and opened fire with a 12-gauge shotgun:
The man apparently walked up to another man in the back of the church, shot him “point blank, right there” and then opened fire on the crowd, she said.
The man was tackled when he paused to reload.
I noticed this line in the Knoxville News story:
The FBI is assisting in the investigation, Owen said, “In the event it turns out to be a hate crime.“
And later in the story:
[Witness Barbara Kemper] said the gunman was yelling “hateful things” and was wearing a red, white and blue T-shirt.
“He looked like bad guy.” Kemper said.
Another Knoxville News story about the shooter highlights his apparently long-standing hostility towards Christianity and Christians.
The man accused of a mass church shooting this morning was described by his Powell neighbors as a helpful and kind man, but one who had issues with Christianity.
[...]“He had his own sense of belief about religion, that’s the impression I got of him,” said neighbor Karen Massey. “We were talking one day when my daughter graduated from Bible college, and I told him I was a Christian, then he almost turned angry.
“He seemed to get angry at that.”
According to Massey, Adkisson talked frequently about his parents who “made him go to church all his life … he was forced to do that.”
Yet an NBC story says Adkisson held a “stated hatred of the liberal movement,” which the story claims could have motivated his attack against this particular church, which has advocated women’s and gay rights and founded an American Civil Liberties Union chapter.
The FBI’s website has a “hate crimes” section, which includes this definition of the term:
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
The idea behind this classification is that crimes (such as murder, arson, and vandalism) that are motivated by “hate” should result in stiffer penalties for the offenders than the same crimes motivated by “traditional” reasons. This was codified as U.S. law in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Yet you’ll note that “political beliefs” are not covered under the above definition of a “hate crime.” Therefore Mr. Adkisson’s crime could be classified as a hate crime only if he “hated” the victims because they were Christians — but not if he “hated” them because they represented the “liberal movement.”
There is no rational way to explain this discrepancy. Unlike race or ethnic origin, religious and political beliefs are both individual choices. Both, to a certain extent, rely on faith in certain values or ideals. Both can be “inherited” from a person’s parents. Yet crimes committed because of “hatred” of a person’s religion can get you a harsher sentence than those committed because of “hatred” of a person’s political beliefs.
The entire notion of determining punishment for a federal crime based on the defendant’s supposed motivation of “hatred” seems illogical. If a man burns down another man’s house or torches his business, he should be punished because he committed arson, no matter whether he did it because the man was of another race or because he cut him off on the highway the week before.
If a criminal vandalizes someone’s garage, their punishment should not be determined by whether they spray-painted a common profane word or a racial slur.
Similarly, if someone commits murder, they should be punished because they took another person’s life in cold blood. A murderer should not get a lesser sentence because they killed someone over a financial dispute rather than because the victim was a Hindu.
In the Knoxville case above, Mr. Adkisson planned out his crime in advance (”he had been plotting the attack for at least a week”): he made sure to do it when he knew the church would be packed for a children’s play so as to maximize casualties; he hid his gun in a guitar case so as to enter the building unnoticed; and he even brought an extra bag full of ammunition with him to allow him to reload and kill as many innocent people as possible.
Maybe he did it because he hated Christians. Maybe he did it for political reasons because he hated the “liberal movement” he thought the church represented. Determining his true motive is important for the judicial process and for closure for the families of the victims, but it shouldn’t determine his sentence. If he is found guilty, the facts alone should be enough for a jury to give Mr. Adkisson the punishment he deserves. (Note: Tennessee does allow the death penalty.)
Murder is murder.
**UPDATE: Police have announced the discovery of a 4-page “manifesto” written by Adkisson describing his hatred of “liberals in general, as well as gays.”
Therefore it looks less likely that religious hatred was a motive, but this again presents a problem: only half of the self-described motive can qualify this shooting as a “hate crime.” It’s not difficult to imagine that sentencing in this case could turn on an absurd debate about “which group Adkisson hated more” — gays or liberals.
I guess some people just don’t get it and will never get it unless you or your people butts are beat, and murdered and mistreated just because you are African American, Jewish, Homosexual, etc.
Murder is murder and if the motivation behind such a murder is for no reason other than because of hatred because of a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation, it should carry addititional penalties.
Assault is assault and if the motivation behind an assault upon another is for no reason other than because of hatred because of a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation, it should carry additional penalties.
I feel the same way about the reverse concerning this issue. If a minority committed a crime against other just because of their race, religion or sexual oientation, it should carry additional penalities.
Our society must become one that stands up and SHOW people that such criminal behavior and sickness is wrong and will not be accepted , nor tolerated in America. We should be an example to the world if we are to be a leader in this world. So far America has not been a good example to the world only a hypocrite in this big world of ours, and is why we are so disrespected in the world.
“it should carry addititional penalties.”
Such as? Life in prison TWICE? Or for those of us who support the death penalty, two lethal doses? Twice the voltage from Old Sparky?
Some people just never grasp the simple fact that to reach the laudable goal of true social equality, we have to discard notions like arbitrary set asides for special classes and prosecution of thought. You simply cannot argue that all are worthy of equal protection under the law while at the same time arguing for extra-specialness of annointed groups. That isn’t to say judges and juries shouldn’t take motive into consideration when deciding guilt and innocence, but the whole idea that we need a special set of laws above and beyond what works perfectly well for society as a whole smacks of the same racial/ethnic/religious/gender superiority its proponents claim to be against.
This is such a tragic occurence in many respects.
First, Adkisson’s motivations (whatever they may actually turn out to be) led him to the assumption that he needed to kill people of a particular church.
Second, that there are those who still miss the point that Adkisson justified his killing because of what he believed to be true.
One cannot continually preach and rail against “special” groups (pick your favorites: gays, GOP Contributors, Hyper-Rich, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, etc), then act surprised and shocked when someone like Adkisson starts shooting.
Thank God for those “liberal Unitarian Universalists” who had the courage to stand in front of and then tackle Adkisson during his shooting spree.
D. Walker,
You said, “if the motivation behind such a murder is for no reason other than because of hatred because of a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation, it should carry addititional penalties.”
Why?
I happen to be a minority according to the definition you state. People may have abused my rights for that reason. I see no reason they should be punished more than anyone else who may have abused my rights for some other reason.
Who will be the first black criminals to be charged with this? If the Knoxville murders don’t qualify, I don’t know what would. In case you haven’t heard of this, Google Knoxville murders. Of course this will never happen as the double standard of society continues.
Too often people mistake “I can’t think of a reason why X” for “there is no possible reason for X.” This post appears to completely overlook a longstanding division in theories of justice; namely, the division between retributive and consequentialist theories of punishment. Retributive theories of justice hold that the reason for punishment is that criminals deserve to be punished for what they did. Consequentialist theories hold that people should be punished as a preventative measure; that is, by punishing people when they commit a crime, you reduce the likelihood that those people *and* other people will commit similar crimes in the future.
On the retributive model, there is little reason to differentiate hate crimes, IMO. Criminal acts done out of hatred or done for other reasons are equally abhorrent, and as such if the reason for punishment is retributive then both people “deserve” to be punished to the same extent.
However, I think there are good reasons for hate crimes on consequentialist theories of punishment. I don’t think this particular case qualifies, since the shooter seemed to be an isolated, crazy individual. However, if there was a systematic series of crimes aimed at a particular group of people, that intimidated members of that group from making certain choices and participating in certain areas of public life, then in a sense those crimes have more than just one victim. For example, if a series of crimes was committed only against people who owned BMWs, then that would cause people to be apprehensive about buying BMWs in the future. So, as a society that values freedom, it seems important to include extra punishments for crimes that are designed to intimate or harass groups of people as a way of limiting their freedom, in order to better prevent those types of crimes from occurring in the future.
I don’t get what you’re saying here … on the one hand, you say “murder is murder.” But then, you say that “determining his true motive is important for the judicial process.” So does it matter, or does it not?
Nick,
I think Go_Fish and Adam actually summed up my position pretty well. As Go_Fish stated:
“That isn’t to say judges and juries shouldn’t take motive into consideration when deciding guilt and innocence, but the whole idea that we need a special set of laws above and beyond what works perfectly well for society as a whole…”
…is absurd in most cases. And, as Adam notes, using the “retributive” model of justice:
“there is little reason to differentiate hate crimes…Criminal acts done out of hatred or done for other reasons are equally abhorrent, and as such if the reason for punishment is retributive then both people “deserve” to be punished to the same extent.”
Adam notes that even under the alternative “consequentalist” model, this particular case “doesn’t qualify” because it was a single act by a “crazed individual” and not a “systematic series of crimes” aimed at a particular group of people, i.e. Christians or “liberals.”
Those two comments very cogently summarize what I’m trying to say. Hope that cleared things up.
Adam S,
Of course there are several arguments used in determining how to best deal with criminals.
A criminal cannot commit a crime without hatred and enmity against the person they wrong. So every crime is a hate crime.
You and D. Walker may argue a mugger steals for money. I say the mugger steals because he hates you and what you have produced and wants to take it from you. That he wants to trade that for something else does not lessen his hatred of you or make it less than someone who hates you because you are black or latino or native american.