That didn’t take long, even if it wasn’t from the expected direction. After questioning whether the systemic reforms announced by the new Los Angeles district attorney, George Gascón, were sustainable, answers swiftly emerged.
LGBTQ voters and others were dumbstruck last week when Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón announced that, in addition to several other sweeping reforms, he’d be ending sentencing enhancements for criminals, including those found to have committed hate crimes.
“People that commit a crime … they are going to face accountability. And that accountability will be proportionate to the crime,” the newly minted DA explained. “Enhancements do not have anything to do with accountability.”
You see where this came from. You see where this is going.
After taking a call with LGBTQ advocates on Thursday, December 17, Gascón amended the directive, saying he would now “allow enhanced sentences in cases involving the most vulnerable victims and in specified extraordinary circumstances. These exceptions shall be narrowly construed.”
So no enhancement, except when sexual orientation and gender identity kicks in? What about hate crime enhancements when there’s a racial component, and the victim is a black person? In one fell swoop, Gascón shifted his position that a crime, punishable in itself because it’s conduct violates the law, is now subject to enhancements based on identity politics. If it’s a favored identity, we’re back to tacking on punishment for conduct plus thought crime. If not, then it’s just your run of the mill murder.
Does it matter that Gascón’s shift only applies to “the most vulnerable victims”? Like who, grandmas who can’t defend themselves? Is there anything particularly vulnerable about one’s race or gender identity? Can’t a transgender person pack as good a punch as a straight person? Can a poor person run as fast as a rich person?
“Since hate violence has a unique serious impact on the community, it is entirely appropriate to acknowledge that this form of criminal conduct merits more substantial punishment,” wrote Jeffrey I. Abrams, Regional Director, ADL Los Angeles. “Bias crimes are intended to intimidate the victim and members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling fearful, isolated, and vulnerable. Failure to address this unique type of crime often causes an isolated incident to explode into widespread community tension. The damage done by hate crimes, therefore, cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. By making members of targeted communities fearful, angry, and suspicious of other groups—and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them— these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.”
Lots of words, but does the argument mean anything beyond wanting anyone committing a crime against one’s special identity group to suffer extra-harsh punishment? This is repackaged carceral rhetoric, as if fear of crime doesn’t leave the community feeling fearful.
No one wants to be the victim of a crime. But this isn’t about making assault or murder not a crime, but making it an enhanced crime because they want special punishment for special identities. Is that what is meant by reform, or is it just reform for those favored and harsher punishment for those who aren’t?
No comments:
Post a Comment