TINATRENT.COM

CRIME. POLITICS. ACADEMIA. MEDIA.

What Wasn’t Said About Dharun Ravi: The Hate Crimes Racket

There is a strange article about the Tyler Clementi hate crime conviction in Minding the Campus: in it, Jackson Toby, a professor emeritus, claims that ” criminologists are not enthusiastic supporters of hate-crime laws.”

Bunk.

It is nice to imagine that, somewhere out there, there are criminologists troubled by the selective enforcement protocols and unelected power grabs that characterize the hate crimes industry.  But I have encountered only one such creature in many years of tracking the enforcement of hate crimes laws.  All the rest dumbly cheer the hate crimes parade, at least as it applies to whatever cause du jour justifies that professor’s raison d’etre.

As it were.

One particularly galling incoherence arising from these laws (which might have been illuminated by this case but was not) occurs at the intersection of sex crimes and bias intimidation. I’m assuming that Mr. Ravi was convicted under a peeping statute.  Little has been said about this, and I’m not surprised.  Sexual offenses of any kind represent thin ice for the hate crime establishment, because the establishment does not want hate crime laws “diluted” or subjected to “distraction” (their words) by “counting” sex crimes and sexual slurs against heterosexual women as hate.

You can see the problem: it’s a number game.  So you won’t find activists talking about the conviction of Mr. Ravi in terms of sexual abuse, because then somebody might pop up and say, hey, what about all those other cases of sexual abuse, the ones targeting females?  Shouldn’t they also count as bias intimidation?

They should indeed, if you are naive enough to believe that laws are enforced as they are written.  This is true of most laws, but not hate crime law.  With hate crime law, activists have worked behind the scenes for nearly two decades to ensure that heterosexual women never get counted as victims of hate under the category of gender bias because doing so would necessitate counting, at the very least, serial sex offenses as hate crimes. And there goes the statistical neighborhood, as it were, and even more so if you start “counting” male serial killers who intentionally select random male victims.

Add in child molesters, and imagine what the hate crimes offender universe starts to look like.

Whenever an offender randomly selects a female or a male and attacks what makes them female or male — their sex organs — then those crimes naturally ought to be prosecuted as hate crimes: this is what the laws are supposed to do (In reality, hate crime enforcement as it exists today doesn’t even meet the “random” standard very often — contrary to the screeching headlines, most hate crime prosecutions involve people who do know each other and offenses that rarely rise above simple assault).

Here are the 2009 FBI statistics.  For comparison, there were 88,000 forcible rapes in 2009, and those were reported rapes with police investigations, whereas the hate crime numbers are collected as “incidents and offenses,” a specially-invented category that the criminologists don’t want to clarify for you, either:

[Hate Crime] Offenses by crime category [2009]

Of the 7,789 hate crime offenses reported:

  • 61.5 percent were crimes against persons.
  • 38.1 percent were crimes against property.
  • The remainder were crimes against society. 

Crimes against persons

Law enforcement reported 4,793 hate crime offenses as crimes against persons. By offense type:

  • 45.0 percent were intimidation.
  • 35.3 percent were simple assault.
  • 19.1 percent were aggravated assault.
  • 0.4 percent were the violent crimes of murder (8 offenses) and forcible rape (9 offenses).
  • 0.3 percent involved the offense category other, which is collected only in the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

Crimes against property

  • Of the 2,970 hate crime offenses that were crimes against property, 83.0 percent were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism.
  • The remaining 17.0 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other crimes. 

Crimes against society

There were 26 offenses defined as crimes against society (e.g., drug or narcotic offenses or prostitution).

Meanwhile, not even serial killer/rapists who carve up half-a-dozen women get counted as hate criminals, thanks to a very specific and ugly betrayal by feminists and other activists — orchestrated by none other than Eric Holder, back when he was cozying up to Bill Clinton and working under Janet Reno.  Holder was abetted by Abe Foxman and Kim Gandy, the former president of the N.O.W., who shoved her heterosexual membership under the proverbial bus to pander to the gay and minority activists who always demand such pandering from heterosexual women.  The Left is a disturbingly sexist place.  It is where the real war on women lives.

If you counted serial rape and serial killing of women or men as hate crimes, then in addition to the very large problem of heterosexual women suddenly becoming the largest category of hate victim, there would also suddenly be a great many minority and gay hate criminals, and these offenders would rank among the hate criminals who committed the worst crimes: rape, murder, and murder/rape.  This is certainly not what the activists, or Holder, wanted when they took the time to invent these laws and then invent such novel ways of deploying them.

So the ADL, SPLC, SCLC, HRC, and others fought very underhandedly to keep (heterosexual, biological) women from being counted as victims of gender bias hatred.  Very, very rarely, a heterosexual-female-victim case slips through, but it’s the exception that proves the rule that, in practice, only gays and transvestites and cross-dressers get counted as gender bias victims.

Activists breathed a big sigh of relief when criminologists and legal scholars kept their mouths firmly shut about this insanely illogical, increasingly politicized, and subjective enforcement of hate crime laws.  How quietly?  One activist admitted to me that her organization didn’t put the rape question (which always came up, she said) in writing when training prosecutors and police.

Meanwhile, ironically, other feminists were working to remove gender bias FROM sex crime laws: they worked state-by-state to remove any reference to female victims or male attackers in the criminal code.  Thanks to that reform, men are now recognized as victims of sexual assault, and women are punished when they commit sexual assaults.  Contrast this with Ireland, where, as Kevin Myers bemoans pungently, only males are held responsible for illicit teen-teen consensual sex.

The criminologists and law professors kept their lips zipped as activists empowered by Holder took over training of police and prosecutors and DAs, instructing them in the niceties of counting some victims while not counting others, and not keeping records that might come to the attention of anyone asking uncomfortable questions.  After all, you can’t get tenure if you don’t get research grants, and they don’t give out research grants at the McDonalds: they give them out at the DOJ.  Soon the hate crimes leadership could do or say pretty much anything.  Academia responded by chaneling the silence of the lambs.

My favorite ugly admission from those early years, before the hate crimes industry perfected the art of owning the press, was a murder in rural Georgia where investigators announced that they were trying to figure out if Offender X had known he was killing a man dressed like a woman (hate crime) or if he was “just” offing a woman (not a hate crime).  The gay and transvestite activists geared up to raise hell if it were the former, and Georgia feminists deferred and bowed and scraped, carefully saying nothing at all about the extraordinarily dehumanizing double standard unfolding in their own back yard.  Thus the official determination of the victim’s relative worth in the eyes of the law was reduced to whether or not he/she had male genitals beneath his/her dress when he/she was throttled to death.

Here’s what I think.  The victim, Tracey Thompson, was the victim of a hate crime whether or not his or her* attacker cared about his or her genitals.  Thompson’s life and soul mattered more than his or her sexual identity.

Nice little legacy the hate crimes industry invented: instantaneous minimization of murderous hatred of half the human race.  Efficient.

And silence regarding this and every other ugly double-standard perpetrated by hate crime activists is the legacy of the criminology profession and law professors, too — silence as activists gained control over DOJ protocols and training and politicized justice and corroded the very notion of equal protection under the law. With precious few exceptions, criminologists abandoned both critical analysis and principle when faced with the possibility of having to swim against the activists’ tide. It is too late for them to pretend otherwise now.

 

*I don’t know which Thompson would have preferred to be called.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *