Will the Santa Barbara Slayings Be Classified as Hate Crimes?

Until just a few years ago, gender bias was not even included in the definition of such crimes.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
May 28, 2014, 6:48 a.m.

For any­one still won­der­ing why rape is con­sidered an act of vi­ol­ence, Fri­day’s slay­ings in Isla Vista should help con­nect the dots.

In a 140-page mani­festo, El­li­ot Rodger de­scribed his so-called “Day of Re­tri­bu­tion” — the day when he would wreak his re­venge on all the wo­men in the world for whom his de­sire went un­re­quited. The lo­gic was as simple as it was bank­rupt: If he couldn’t have power over wo­men’s bod­ies sexu­ally, he would have power over them phys­ic­ally. In this case, that meant not rap­ing them but killing them, along with any­one who’d en­joyed the pleas­ures of a sexu­ally ful­filled life — it also meant be­ing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“I gave the world too many chances,” he wrote in a rant emailed to fam­ily and friends shortly be­fore his killing spree on Fri­day. “It was time for re­tri­bu­tion.”

Many have writ­ten the tragedy off as the rav­ings of a mad­man, but read­ing through his screed, you can faintly make out the traces of some main­stream Amer­ic­an val­ues: that wo­men are prizes to be won and that men can win them with just a little more money, or a slightly bet­ter job title, or maybe just high­er testoster­one. “You are an­im­als,” he wrote of the en­tire fe­male sex, “and I will slaughter you like an­im­als.” (Over at The Daily Beast, Jeop­ardy! nerd boy Ar­thur Chu has chron­icled the cul­ture of nerdy en­ti­tle­ment bril­liantly.)

Hate crimes, ac­cord­ing to Gail Ma­son, a pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Sydney, aim to con­demn not just crim­in­al con­duct per se, but also ra­cism, ho­mo­pho­bia, re­li­gious in­tol­er­ance, and the like. “In this way,” she writes in her 2010 pa­per, “they seek to make a broad mor­al claim that ‘pre­ju­dice is wrong’ and to thereby ‘re­in­force pro-so­cial val­ues of tol­er­ance and re­spect for mar­gin­al­ized and dis­ad­vant­aged groups.’ “

Such crimes fit the bill quite neatly for what happened to the two wo­men killed in Isla Vista, but un­til just a few years ago, gender-based hate crimes didn’t even ex­ist as a cat­egory. That changed in 2009, when the Mat­thew Shep­ard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Pre­ven­tion Act made gender, gender iden­tity, and sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion pro­tec­ted cat­egor­ies un­der fed­er­al law.

It does mat­ter very much how we cat­egor­ize things: It has the power to change the con­ver­sa­tion, and maybe one day, how we treat wo­men.

Not that these cat­egor­ies have al­ways been par­tic­u­larly help­ful in pro­sec­ut­ing vi­ol­ence against wo­men. Just this week, for in­stance, an In­di­ana man found guilty of re­peatedly rap­ing and drug­ging his wife for years got off without be­ing sen­tenced to a single day in pris­on. He was ul­ti­mately giv­en eight years of home con­fine­ment. Had his as­saults been clas­si­fied as hate crimes, which typ­ic­ally carry harsh­er pun­ish­ments, he may have been giv­en a more suit­able sen­tence.

In­deed, Chris An­ders of the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on has ar­gued in The New York Times that hate-crime laws, with their as­so­ci­ated stricter sen­ten­cing, can add an ex­tra de­terrent to this kind of be­ha­vi­or — but only if the crimes are clas­si­fied and talked about as such.

Jim Jac­obs, a pro­fess­or at the New York Uni­versity School of Law and a coau­thor of Hate Crime: Crim­in­al Law and Iden­tity Polit­ics, doesn’t see the de­bate that way. The shoot­er is dead, he notes, so there’s nobody to pro­sec­ute, and any la­beling would have strictly to do with stat­ist­ic­al clas­si­fic­a­tion. “It would be in­ter­est­ing to know wheth­er they’re go­ing to count it in the stat­ist­ic­al re­port­ing,” he told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “It sounds like it should be.” And yet, he adds, if every crime in­volving miso­gyny were con­sidered a hate crime, it would over­whelm the cat­egory. 

He also be­lieves the clas­si­fic­a­tion is more about sym­bol­ic polit­ics than any real re­tri­bu­tion. “It’s a great op­por­tun­ity for politi­cians to stand up and beat their chests,” he said.

It’s true that there’s little chance any le­gis­la­tion will be passed by Con­gress as a res­ult of this tragedy, no mat­ter how the crimes are clas­si­fied. Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook shoot­ings, Pres­id­ent Obama was help­less to push through any­thing more than ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions.

But even if no laws are passed by Con­gress, and even if there’s nobody left alive to be held ac­count­able, Fri­day’s tragedy showed that it does mat­ter very much how we cat­egor­ize things: It has the power to change the con­ver­sa­tion, and maybe one day, how we treat wo­men.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×