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.
Adam S., you provide much food for thought in your last post, but I have to disagree. While people who terrorize minorities are despicable and should be deterred, people who terrorize members of a majority group are equally wrong. While we may deem it wise to crack down on certain kinds of crime (e.g., murder), it’s racist and short-sighted of us to crack down only on the murder of certain kinds of people. If we increase the penalty for murder *generally,* we protect everyone–not just minorities.
John Deal, you are right on the money. It’s all hate crimes. And this unusually insightful editorial’s update beautifully illustrates the problems inherent in sentencing enhancements based on hate crimes.
http://www.grafshepherd.com
In a quote from the above mentioned article (cf. “discovery of a 4-page manifesto”):
“Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.”
Now before some of our native “conservatives” say I am being “unfair”, let me state clearly, as long as your opinions remain opinions feel free to express them. Adkisson made the not-too-logical leap to taking action to kill liberals, etc.
This is always the problem with extremism of expression, it can and has led people to move to muderous actions “justified” in the very extremist rhetoric used.
As to the whole “hate crime” debate, I remember when that legislation was being passed. We were not too far removed from an era that saw crosses burning on people’s lawns, and the very same people being shot, hung, bombed, burned, for being black. We also have had in more recent years certain groups targeting Synagogues and Mosques via vandalism (painting of swastikas, destroying property), and shooting people who looked different. These are what was intended originally by the “hate crime” legislation.
I do not accept that we as a nation have advanced sufficiently to think that the rule of law will be applied fairly across the board regardless of race, creed, religion, and social class.
Neither do I accept the whines of a privileged class who feel they are being discriminated against because some poor, disenfranchised person may actually get a fair break before the bar of justice.
I believe the “hate crime” legislation is dangerous. Deeds can be judged objectively and concretely. Motives are something else. Sometimes we don’t even know our own personal motives, much less judging someone else’s.
As a Christian I believe the Biblical passage: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” Who can really know the heart, the seat of motives, other than One Who is omniscient (all-knowing)?
The victims of rape, murder, arson, etc. feel no different consequence whatever the motive. The deed is what hurt them and irreparably harmed them.
I have to agree with my right wing friends on this one. Probably because this is not political. Mr. Fish has it covered better than my lack of eloquence could. Mr. Deal- I believe any criminal can be totally without emotion when selecting a victim for their perticular offense. Theirchances of success are greater if they leave emotion out it.
I meant to say that (perticular)
Is rape still rape?
Should a man who rapes a woman receive the same penalty for raping a child?
If someone assault or murder a person just because of their race religion or sexual preferences I sincerely think that it is necessary for stiffer penalties because as a society just as we must display to citizens that it is not tolerated to hurt children just because they are venerable, the same holds true concerning crimes against someone because of their race, religion or sexual preference.
Our society has the accepted practice of harsher penalties for a wide arrange of things such as if one assault or murder a police officer etc.
I think that the only reason one cannot see this is because they do not see these certain groups as beings (certain minorities, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish) as valuable of human beings as the White race. Our society shows us everyday that this is true, while I am not ignoring that things are becoming better, we still are not there yet. I also realize we will never totally rid society of this evil because of the nature of all human beings being evil. It takes much work feeding one’s heart with what’s good in order to not fall into what is our natural nature.
Slamfist,
It is the unemotional criminal who may hate you the most. In my opinion the lack of emotion illustrates a greater hatred.
I don’t just mean things that are against the law. Take taxation for instance. The people who take from the wealthy to give to themselves hate the wealthy. You never hear anyone say how grateful they are to the people who give (or more accurately have their money taken from them). That is because they hate the people they rob from.
D. Walker, as to your statement, “I think that the only reason one cannot see this is because they do not see these certain groups as beings (certain minorities, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish) as valuable of human beings as the White race,” I disagree. Anyone one of the above could be killed in a robbery, or a personal vendetta based on a factor other than race, religion or sexual orientation. What about the homosexual who kills a homosexual out of rejection, etc.? A boy was raped and murdered by two homosexual men. Was that a hate crime? Everyday unborn babies are killed, especially black babies. Is that a hate crime? What is the motive behind targeting black unborn babies for abortion? Is it some great White conspiracy?
More Christians have been killed by Muslims than the other way around. Should they be treated as hate crimes? More African Americans have murdered Whites than vice versa. Where do motives come into play here?
It’s best we judge the dastardly deeds and leave discerning someone’s heart and motives to God, in my opinion.
HL et al -
“I believe the “hate crime” legislation is dangerous. Deeds can be judged objectively and concretely. Motives are something else. Sometimes we don’t even know our own personal motives, much less judging someone else’s.”
If it were truly a random act of violence committed for the sole purpose of robbery, rape, murder etc., the I might be in agreement with your statement. However, in this particular instance, there exists a document written by Adkisson stating his “reasons”, this is where the “hate crime” legislation may come in.
“Hate crimes” almost always involve a specific group being targeted for specific reasons, and, are often “justified” by the perpetrators through a particular line of thought, belief, or “reasoning” which they are only too glad to sharte with the rest of us.
A serial rapist does not necessarily discriminate as to his targets (age, race may not even apply, wherein “convenience” may). However, rape as an act of war against a specific ethnic or societal class population is considered differently.
Adkisson stated his motives, and no amount of dancing around that fact changes anything.
The death of Matthew Shepard was a robbery gone bad according to the killers. Yet he has become a cause celebre for the gay community. The fact that he was gay had nothing to do with the crime. There are so many incidents in life where appearances aren’t reality.
Take the case of the Dr. Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson smearing his shirt with his blood. He appeared a hero of some kind, but those who were there said King didn’t trust him, and they were the ones to expose what transpired.
Judging an objective and concrete deed allows for little chance of going wrong. Getting into someone’s head and heart leaves room for lots and grave error.