Why I Still Don’t Believe in Hate Crimes

Recently, a discussion about “hate crimes” came up on Monomakhos. Brian, one of our esteemed commentators took me to task because I thought that that moniker was a redundancy. In other words, that it was unnecessary.

The debate between Brian and myself was honest and in good faith; which is most appreciated. I for one, respect the fact that both sides have valid points to make. For awhile, I refrained from further commentary, retreating into some introspection. Probably because the thread played itself out.

And then the atrocity in Chicago happened last week. It shook me to the core.

The savage, day-long torture of a young mentally-disabled white man by four black thugs (who he thought were his friends) caused me to vomit. I’ve never made this blog about myself or my family but I can say that this atrocity struck very close to home. Very close.

Now that I’ve got that off of my chest, I’m more than ever convinced on the speciousness of hate crime legislation. Allow me to explain; I’m not displaying cognitive dissonance.

First, what happened to that poor young man was a crime, pure and simple. That it was especially prolonged in its savagery is secondary to the point. After the first few beatings that these criminals inflicted upon him, anything else was overkill. Just the laying of one finger on that boy was a horrible crime. One that deserved to be punished to the fullest extent of the law in my opinion.

Second, the mental gymnastics that the Chicago police force undertook only solidified in my mind that the left is not serious about equal protection under the law. If they really believed in their own definition of what constitutes a hate crime, they would have slapped additional charges on these criminals without a second’s thought. Instead, the authorities dithered for a full 48 hours until national outrage forced them to accept the obvious. If the powers-that-be thought for even a nano-second that they could have gotten away with not calling this a hate crime, they would have done so. Of this, I’m convinced.

In other words, if you needed any proof at all that hate crimes laws are nothing but Orwellian attempts at placating specific grievance groups, to be trotted out to for use against disfavored individuals, you need look no further.

So yeah, I’m still against the entire concept of hate crimes. Not because atrocities don’t happen but because the Oligarchy is not intent on enforcing them equally, unless they’re forced to. In this instance –and only because it was broadcast–were they forced to do so.

In the meantime, if there is anybody reading this who lives in the Chicago area and who knows any local charity that is assisting him and his family, please let us know.

As for the evildoers who did this, I choose to view them in the prism of Obama’s America. They are responsible for their deeds to be sure but let’s be honest, they felt emboldened to do so because of eight years of grievance-mongering and the whole Black Lives Matter nonsense.

I pray that the new Attorney General brings charges against George Soros in due time. And really, really throws the book at these thugs.


  1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4108960/How-Trump-s-nemesis-John-McCain-kicked-Kremlin-memo-scandal-handing-dossier-FBI-sending-emissary-abroad-collect-it.html

    They are like energizer bunnies, they keep going and going . . . “Golden rain” is a fag practice of pissing on one another. I’ve only read about it and obviously never engaged in it.

    How sick and low are these deviant perverts willing to become?


    Truly pathetic.

    There is such a thing as dispassion. It is attained in theosis through theoria. Stonewall Jackson is a good example of this quality, which I believe he had to a high degree. He married a Presbyterian and came to Christ or sought Him in some way, outside the Church, of course. He developed what was called “Holy Indifference”. He could walk in battle with a thousand yard stare ignoring the ordinance.


    It is a gift from God.

  2. All violent crimes come from the evil within us all. The majority of us can control the evil within, but some can not. Hate is not a crime, as my thoughts and opinions should never be prosecuted, only my actions, period. Our secular society will not allow itself to call out evil. Instead we replace evil with mental disorders, excusing the evil doer. As much as I would like to hurt those in Chicago who tortured an innocent child like adult, I would then only feed the cycle of violence that will only continue, and grow. The demons are always in search of feeding our evil within, how we react to those who hurt us, will decide our judgement….And, then we have our thought provoking friend, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who will put our hate and anger in perspective for justice.

    “Remember particularly that you cannot judge anyone. For none can judge a criminal until he recognizes that he is just as criminal as the man sitting before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime. When he understands that, he will be able to be a judge. Though that sounds absurd, it is true. If I had been righteous myself, perhaps there would not have been no criminal standing before me.”Fyodor Dostoyevsky-The Brothers Karamazov-

    • This is well said, Dino. It is as true as it is unpopular. In the eyes of most it is, both impractical and incomprehensible. It is the foolishness of God that is wiser than men.

      I was immediately reminded of these words from the book of Wisdom.

      “But Thou, mastering Thy power, judgest with equity, and orderest us with great favour: for Thou mayest use power when Thou wilt. But by such works hast Thou taught thy people that the just man should be merciful, and hast made thy children to be of a good hope that Thou givest repentance for sins. Therefore, whereas Thou dost chasten us, Thou scourgest our enemies a thousand times more, to the intent that, when we judge, we should carefully think of Thy goodness, and when we ourselves are judged, we should look for mercy.”

      • Brian, Our mind can comprehend what humanity here on earth would be like if we all took care of our brother and sister before our own interest, yet sadly, in our fallen state our soul will always feed our body and interests first before feeding, and tending our neighbors. I imagine heaven will be that selfless world, unachievable here on earth.

        The lessons, love, and examples Jesus taught are the mark or target we should shoot for, always knowing the bull’s eye will never be hit. The trick is to never give up, and keep reaching for the mark.

  3. Maltreatment of the disabled is a hate crime


    We must seek to protect the most vulnerable in society. I find it particularly horrifying that the defense mounted mentions the religiosity of the perpetrators of this torture

  4. Stacy Sennott says

    George, your commentary lacks perspective due to the same bias you are complaining about.

    Here is a crime that did NOT make the front page headlines of CNN, USA Today or the Chicago Tribune, and will result in no jail time due to a plea deal. The crime you address is hideous, but so is this one. Yet have you seen the same coverage and outrage? A white football player accused of sexually assaulting a black teen with disabilities with a HANGER. Whether you are willing to see it or not, the system is bias, unless you can come up with a decent explanation for the discrepancy in media exposure, outrage and punishment that will ensue.


    • George Michalopulos says

      Stacy, all such crimes are reprehensible. My point was that they shouldn’t be prefaced by the word “hate.” Not only is it obvious but the legal regime in place would debate its application in every circumstance. That fact alone means that there’s a 50/50 chance that it won’t be applied.

      As to what that white football player did, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That’s unarguable. What’s not unarguable is the level of interracial (black-on-white) crime that exists in proportion to the reverse. I didn’t get into that but that’s one reason I think that America “snapped” when this story came out. It’s a grotesque metaphor for our society at large.

      • Stacy Sennott says

        Yes you are correct that the double standard of black on white crimes is unarguable. But it is also unarguable that white privilege makes a mockery of the justice system with very different outcomes of punishment base on race and status. I can provide many instances that support this. But just look at the Dokos case I was very vocal about. Theft of over $100k by a minority working at 7-11 would surely have resulted in some time behind bars.

        • The worse racial, and social injustice our country still has is Capital punishment. It should be abolished, as it will never be applied fair or equal to all. Even when the most deserving are executed, they are on death row on average 20 years, and then simply put to sleep. Millions wasted on mandatory retrials, and appeals. Simply lock em up throw away the key, and let them rot.

  5. I don’t recall taking you to task, George. We essentially agree. And I certainly agree with this post. I believe it was Anonymous that took you to task.

    Here are my two comments on the subject in reply to two of yours:

    Actually, George, not all crimes are driven by hate. There is covetousness, lust, drug addiction, desperation, and intoxication to name just a few. Nevertheless, crime is crime. I have never understood why motive should matter under the law (with the possible exception of starvation), although I would be open to hearing arguments. A person is dead, raped, defrauded…whatever. Regardless of motive the deed is done.


    True, George. It is not love to be sure. But it is not necessarily hate either. I think of a thief who robs a store or burglarizes a home, for example. The owner is a matter of indifference to the thief. Another example is a mobster who has been apprehended and might “sing” to save his skin. The other mobsters may like or even ‘love’ him as a person, but “He must be taken out” for the sake of the ‘business.’ This would be a case of murder wherein the motive was covetousness.

    As I was thinking about this topic it occurred to me that motive can (and in some cases should) matter – not in terms of the category of crime with which a person is charged (and certainly not “hate crime”), but in terms of sentencing. An example would include the wife of a chronically physically abusive husband who finally broke down and killed him. Motive can, and in some cases probably should, be a mitigating factor in sentencing. And as much as we may despise the outrageous decisions of some, as a rule sentence severity is best left in the hands of judges, as there can be no sentencing laws to fit every situation. Overly rigid sentencing laws wind up being every bit as unjust as overly lenient judges.

  6. Well the crimes don’t need new names, but the punishments need to be greater. No different than the crime of killing someone when you rob them. You deserve extra time.

  7. M. Stankovich says

    Let me note that objective data regarding the designation hate crime does exist and is monitored by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. They issued their summary of hate crimes for 2015 in November, 2016, and all the details you would ever want are available here. If you look for the page describing “Methodology,” you will find the definition and rationale by which a crime is so designated:

    The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that were motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, gender, gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and were committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an agency report an incident as a hate crime.

    Obviously, depending on your interpretation of what constitutes “sufficient evidence” and the extent to which it might lead to a “reasonable and prudent person” to a conclusion of targeting victims “in whole or in part” based on hate/bias, the number of cases reported renders the designation obscure: designated hate crimes in the US in 2015 accounted for .005% of all violent crimes. Hardly Orwellian, or as John Lennon put it, “nothing to get hung up about” (statistically speaking!) I also agree that, by virtue of precedent in US criminal law, aggravating factors – bias related to race/ethnicity/ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender – should be accounted for in determining punishment beyond what is permitted in the statute. Having spent far too long in the presence of Crips, Bloods, Nuestra Familia, Norteños, Nazi Low Riders, Aryan Nation, and the Asian Boyz, it strikes me as reasonable and prudent to conclude that the reality of many offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, and they should be punished accordingly.

    I would conclude, Mr. Michalopulos, that while the crime you note in Chicago was, indeed, heinous and depraved, I do not believe it was a hate crime; if there was ever a case where the FBI’s definition should apply -“The presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime” – this is it. It will be extremely difficult to demonstrate that their original motivation was bias, and to distinguish hate crime from the group psychological dynamic that occurs, for example, in rioting.

  8. Cadwaladr Carew says

    Just look at what happened here in Knoxville, when the young white couple (Christian & Newsom) were raped, tortured, and murdered, by (clearly) racist blacks. No hate crime charges were ever filed; if the races had been reversed, that wouldn’t be the case.

    All crime is rooted in hate, but only white on black crime gets labeled a hate crime (even for the most dubious reasons).

    • What good does it do to call it a “hate crime” and enhance the penalty, though? Murder and torture are still murder and torture, whatever the motivation.

  9. George Michalopulos says

    This link is tangential to the discussion at hand (forgive me). It’s about slavery and its justification by Islamic apologists. What’s striking is that the apologist for Islamic slave-holding is a Catholic professor at Georgetown Univ. I’d like to file it under “political correctness for thee but not for me”.

    Kudos to Rod Dreher for bringing it to our attention.


    • What hypocrisy we live in. I have always believed progressive liberalism as a culture of death and suicide, now add slavery and murder to the list. In the name of progress they would throw their children into the fire. The left will always bend backwards for their beloved Muslims, in the name of tolerance,and quickly call out Christians as haters of tolerance. Three quick points:

      If our population continues as it has in the last couple decades, Muslims will become the majority world wide.

      If Muslims control the majority of the world. These leftist goats and homosexuals will be the first thrown off tall buildings, by their beloved Islamic brotherhood in the name of Sharia law. Next would be us who will not become slaves, or not convert.

      I’m not one for predicting our Lord’s second coming, but if within one hundred years, Islamic global control and Sharia law is our reality , wouldn’t that be enough for our Lord?