Kip raises an interesting question with regard to the lip-service many libertarians pay towards “hate crimes,” specifically, that they by and large despise them. Keeping the scope of the argument to murders, he points out a serious flaw in their reasoning, because many are apt to support stricter sentencing when the victim is a police officer; he asks, “Why should the death penalty be applied differently for one murder but not the other?”

Although I haven’t given this issue a tremendous amount of thought, I previously would’ve belonged to the “cringeing libertarian” camp, and perhaps I still do. Kip goes on to give several demonstrations of other inequalities in sentencing (rich/poor, repeat offenders, probationers, youth, etc…) and asks if “all such distinctions are unfair and anti-libertarian?” I would suggest that to an extent, yes, they are. But you’ll also find that libertarians are often vehemently opposed to mandatory sentencing, which would tend to equalize the terms of sentencing, albeit skewing them sharply upwards…

The overt irony here then, is that this is an instance in which you’ll find many libertarians defending and even exalting the state or its agents, because that’s really the only justifiable reason for differential sentencing as far as cop-killers are concerned: The victim is an agent of the state, specifically an agent of the state entrusted with the responsibility of protecting domestic tranquility, and not solely an individual in his own capacity. Similar reasoning that concludes killing (or attempting to assassinate) the president is Treason, and not just “murder.”

I would argue that in most cases, the fact that a victim is an on-duty officer is prima facie evidence that the perpetrator wanted to kill a police officer, although these are often crimes of circumstance where the victim’s post and status are made apparrent to the perpetrator. On the contrary, I would not apply the same evidenciary blanket to victims, who happened to be gay, or black, or italian, or whatever else. Kip will probably counter with a mens rea argument, so assuming you can prove that the victim’s (age/race/sexual orientation, etc.) was the motivating factor behind the murder, how do I respond?

I’m not really sure. It boils down to: Killing a black is not consequentially different from killing a white/gay/hispanic/hooker. But Killing a cop is pretty much the trump card – it is discernably different from killing your run-of-the mill citizen, and this I believe is the crux of the argument. I’m not convinced that it’s the right stance, but I think this is the defensible position that the “cringeing libertarians” would like to fall back on.

This is not, however, to conclude that crimes motivated by such bigoted hatred aren’t heinous, but, and here comes the “libertarian gobbledygook,” prosecuting these crimes in a manner much different than other similar crimes tends to cheapen the victims in the other circumstances. You might also argue that such legislation lends deferential treatment to a person or group of persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and further, which in most jurisdictions is prohibited to at least some extent.
—-

Cheers Kip, for forcing me to think outside the box when I should be studying for my “Modern Thought” exam tomorrow evening. Menger & Marshall make my brain hurt.