Aw gee, we were just having fun

By Dick Tunison

What in the world is so special about a “hate crime?” When the ultimate result is a senseless transgression against all moral standards, why does hate need to be a factor? Does that aspect of evil rank higher than all others? The deed generally stands alone without any need for social fanning to make it egregious.

In our present culture we seem to want to make severe crimes against homosexuals, those of another race or creed and maybe even political opponents, appear worse than the murder of a family by an enraged father. Does it not require some level of hate to kill one’s own wife and children?

This week we were told that three of the perpetrators of a string of church fires in Alabama were arrested. But the authorities were quick to add these were not hate crimes, but in fact “joke crimes” based on the warped sense of humor of the college students who struck the matches. One can only suppose that if the motivation had something to do with animosity toward Baptists, the description might have teetered on “hate.” The end result of the crime would have been no different. It would have been much clearer had the perpetrators been members of some Baptist sect and the churches had, instead, been synagogues. Now that would have been a real hate crime according to our socially correct definitions.

A young man is beaten to a bloody pulp in an alley in Brownsville. He wore a red bandana and the gang that trounced him wore blue. His death is ruled a gang-motivated street crime. But a gay man is dragged behind a truck in rural Wyoming and nailed to a fence where he dies in agony. That’s a hate crime. Tell me what really distinguishes one from the other? Aren’t the end results of these two crimes equally ghastly and beneath our standards of civilization? Aren't the motives hate in both cases?

Many of us have watched the news of he church fires unfold in disbelief. I think we were all anxious to have the criminals found and brought to justice. But their justification for the crimes they committed is only incidental to the whole. Nine churches were razed or heavily damaged and the young men described their deed as “a joke that went too far.” Literally hundreds of church faithful gave of their time and resources to build these churches. They did it out of love, not as a joke and they see no “joke” in the destructive deed. Arms of the congregants would have been open wide to welcome any of these young men had they stepped through the doors of the churches in humility.

The buildings can be rebuilt – and likely will be. Insofar as we know, no one died as a result of the fires. After all, the faith of the church members was not destroyed along with the pews, hymnals and stained glass windows, so the loss was only material.

Local Alabama authorities think that the three young men will face sentences of up to five years in jail for their “funny crime” if found guilty. But because this was a white on white crime with no apparent evidence of religious prejudice and the congregations were not homosexual, it was just a little old joke of minor significance. You know, boys will be boys.

Police authorities say they see a difference between the looter who steals three loaves of bread and a carton of milk and the one who shoulders a TV set and makes his way out of the store. These are the easy crimes to define. But liberal thinkers have muddied the waters when it comes to the so called “hate” crime. They have created a category intended to rise above all others in order to emphasize their cause. To suggest that the brutal rape, strangulation and mutilation of a young woman falls somewhere below the seriousness of our currently defined “hate” crimes is a stretch of logic.

In my case in point, I guess one could argue the “joke crime” represents little more than youthful exuberance, because the perpetrators really didn’t hate anybody, they were just having fun. Of course motive is an important element in determining the severity of any punishment, but it doesn’t change the basic nature of the crime at all. It is for that the perpetrator needs to be held accountable. When we give up on the importance of personal accountability we give up a big piece of what we once called character.