I hate to say it, but I think the country is getting more goofy than usual. Think about this: Mike Tyson had to undergo psychiatric testing to make sure he was sane enough to beat another human being to a pulp. That's goofy. Hurting,
not hatred,
is a crimeI think Tyson should fight again, mainly because he owes $6 million in federal taxes. I don't care if he's nuttier than a Big Island macadamia ranch, the country could use the dough.
Every time Tyson fights, the country is able to pay teachers, build bridges and buy one or two extra tires for a Stealth bomber.
A man with earning power like that is good for America. If he bites off a few ears along the way, well, we'll just have to live with it.
The way things are going though, a clean psychiatric bill of health won't be enough to get Tyson back into the ring. He'll also have to sign an affidavit saying he doesn't hate the other fighter.
Hate is a big issue in America right now. The country is more outraged that the two idiots who killed the guy in Wyoming hated gays than pistol-whipped the man to death.
President Clinton wants a federal "hate crimes" law. It's a safe proposition. It's almost impossible to find someone who is in favor of hate.
The thing is, hating people is a protected constitutional activity. In a free country, you are allowed to like, dislike, love or hate anyone you want. You just aren't allowed to kill them.
Passing a federal hate crime law is not going to stop people from hating and it's not going to stop murderers from killing people they hate. You think those two jerks in Wyoming would NOT have assaulted their victim if there had been a law against "hate crimes?"
IF you pass a hate crime law, every crime will become a hate crime, especially in a place like Hawaii. Prosecutors routinely file the most serious charges possible against defendants. If they have a choice of charging someone with assault or charging them with assault based on hate, which I presume would carry a harsher punishment, prosecutors will opt for the hate crime charge.
The term "hate crime" is so vague, it can be applied to any crime involving men and women, gay and straight, of all different ethnic backgrounds. For instance, it could probably be argued that every time a criminal uses the phrase "f---ing haole" while robbing a tourist, that would be a hate crime.
The punks who gunned down the helicopter pilot in Nanakuli recently probably would have been charged with a hate crime if there were one on the books. Ditto with the guy who shot the cops at Makapuu. He likely could be charged with a hate crime because shooting at police necessarily indicates at least an intense dislike of law enforcement officers.
Anyone who robs a cab driver of Middle Eastern extraction (or , Japanese, Scottish or ethnic Albanian for that matter) would be charged with a hate crime if he doesn't happen to be of the same ethnic extraction of his victim.
The reason for such a law, I suppose, is to deter crimes motivated by hate. But that simply wouldn't work.
Few crimes are motivated only by hate. Even politically or ideologically motivated crimes, like abortion clinic bombings, are not really hate crimes. They are acts of terrorism.
A hate crime law is a trendy, politically correct, warm and fuzzy feel-good idea that is unneeded.
Stiff, swift punishment for crimes is all that's necessary. If two jerks beat an innocent, helpless human being to death and then hang him on a fence, I don't particularly care whether they hated him or not. I just would want to see them get the chair, the gas or the needle.
Charles Memminger, winner of
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
awards in 1994 and 1992, writes "Honolulu Lite"
Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Write to him at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, 96802
or send E-mail to charley@nomayo.com or
71224.113@compuserve.com.
The Honolulu Lite online archive is at:
http://starbulletin.com/lite