So What If von Brunn Hated Jews?
Does a ‘hate crime’ designation really mean anything?
In addition to being indicted for first-degree murder, alleged U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter James von Brunn was also charged last week with having committed a hate crime. For Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, this charge—which comes a month after the Senate passed new hate crime legislation named for gay murder victim Matthew Shepard—is a perfect illustration of the “folly” of hate-crime laws, which are premised on the notion that some crimes against individuals actually make entire communities less safe. “I am Jewish,” Cohen writes. “But even with von Brunn’s attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at a Holocaust museum.” In the Houston Voice, Rebecca Armendariz fired back: “Just because you, Mr. Cohen, can weigh the effects of a mugging in your neighborhood against the shooting at the museum doesn’t mean everyone can,” then went on to list crime victims, like Shepard, whose sexuality or skin color may have made any neighborhood a dangerous one for them to take a walk. In the San Francisco Chronicle, though, Debra Saunders made a pragmatic argument that aligns with Cohen’s. “It’s hard to understand how a federal hate-crimes law could send a stronger message than life in prison,” she writes. “With or without the Shepard act, Von Brunn could face the death penalty if convicted of first degree murder.”
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.