The New York Times reported today that violent attacks on homeless people have increased over the last decade; most of these attacks are thrill crimes, or in other words, "just for the hell of it."  For a total douchebag who feels the need to let out his fury by beating, raping, or even killing an innocent human being, homeless people would be an easy target.  No locked doors or sealed windows to break into.  No roommates or parents to report them missing if they're not home by a certain time, because there is no home.  Homeless people are less likely to go to the police, police are more likely to see them as a nuisance than as the victim of a crime, and if a homeless person is reported missing both their friends and law enforcement are likely to attribute their disappearence to moving or wandering.  Finally, the chronically homeless are one of the most despised groups in American society. 

 The Times cites a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless which states that in the last decade there have been 880 attacks on homeless people by non-homeless assailants who seemingly just wanted someone to beat up; the exact same sort of bullies who picked on the smallest kid in the lunchroom because they couldn't stand to lose and just wanted someone to pound on.  The crimes are needless, random, and gut-wrenchingly cruel.  One man in L.A. was set on fire and burned alive.  Another man, in North Carolina, was stabbed to death; his torso was cut open with a broken beer bottle.  "Bum fight" videos, which depict teenagers beating up homeless people or paying homeless people to fight each other, proliferate online.  In Las Vegas, the problem has escalated, and money for social services that would likely have gone into shelters has disappeared, so people with nowhere to live have chosen to occupy the flood channels under the strip.  These tunnels can fill a foot per minute with water if it rains hard enough (and yeah, okay, it's the desert, so maybe not too likely either), but hey, at least there aren't teenagers wandering around trying to set you on fire, rape you, or kick the shit out of you and post a video of it on Youtube.  

Some lawmakers have responded to this disturbing trend by pushing to include attacks on the homeless as hate crimes.  Maryland will be the first state to impose harsher penalties for attacks on the homeless, and according to the Times "at least five other states are pondering similar steps, the District of Columbia approved such a measure this week, and a like bill was introduced last week in Congress."  

But the Anti-Defamation League isn't so crazy about this development.  Since homelessness is not a permanent condition like sexual orientation or race or gender, including homelessness dilutes the definition of other crimes.

I see ADL's point--you don't lose your job, miss a few months of rent, and become gay, or start drinking again, stop taking your meds, and suddenly change skin colors--but I disagree with it all the same.  It doesn't matter that homelessness isn't a permanent condition, and is often a result of choices people make (no matter how constrained those choices may have been).  Many other categories that are and should remain fair game for hate crimes aren't especially permanent or immune from our personal choices either.  We include religion as a protected class, but people convert, or stop or start practicing all the time; religious practice is just as impermanent as homelessness.  We count sexual and gender orientation (as of last month--yay!), but while you can't choose whom you're attracted to or what type of body you feel comfortable in, you can choose what to do about it.  In fact, this was one of the bogus arguments against including crimes against gay and transgender folks as hate crimes: "They didn't have to get those sex changes.  They didn't have to cross-dress.  He didn't have to hold hands with his boyfriend.  They didn't have to come out to their friends.  That was their choice, and they have to deal with it."  I mean, if all you include for hate crimes is those things that are absolutely permanent, absolutely fixed at birth, and absolutely immune from choices you make, then all we'd include would be race/ethnicity and national origin.  Clearly, that's unrealistic and improper if the point is prosecuting people who violently assault groups they dislike--so ADL, your argument is a poor one.

 But I still disagree, I think, with defining crimes against the homeless as hate crimes.  Of course, there needs to be more protection for homeless people, but I'm not sure including attacks on them as a hate crime will be effective at doing this.  First and most obvious, the type of people who are committing these crimes are not likely to be deterred by a longer prison sentence, since they choose homeless people specifically BECAUSE they're easier for all of the reasons mentioned above.  For that reason, if stopping crimes against the homeless and making cities a safer place for them is a goal, then screw the legal posturing and nice symbolism.  Put money into shelters, job training, subsidized housing, mental health care, substance abuse counseling, and all the rest, just like people have been telling you to do for years now.  Train police officers to take complaints by the homeless seriously, and make sure it's something individuals know to look out for (this was the first time I'd learned it was even a huge problem, although of course I would call the cops if I saw anyone getting beaten up!).   

Additionally, I don't think that considering attacks on the homeless to be hate crimes is legally correct.  A hate crime is a crime motivated by hatred for a certain group.  If a black family's house is broken into and a bunch of stuff is stolen, that sucks but it's not necessarily a hate crime--maybe the burglar had no idea who the owners were, he just wanted to steal some stuff and their house had the first broken window he found.  If the family's home is broken into, a bunch of stuff is stolen (or not), AND there is racist grafitti, notes, or other evidence that the burglary was motivated by their race and not just having nice appliances or a broken window, that's a hate crime.

Similarly, a teenage boy who takes out his aggression on the panhandler down the street because he's an easy target isn't really committing a hate crime, he's just doing something cruel that he knows is wrong and trying not to get caught.  Of course it's disgusting, evil, sick, and worthy of punishment in our justice system.  Of course the poor guy didn't deserve to get the snot beaten out of him just because the aggressor was having a bad day and wanted a punching bag.  People who commit "thrill" attacks against the homeless should be prosecuted for assault, battery, murder, whatever it is they did, to the fullest extent of the law.  But we can't artificially extend the law just to punish them more for their crime if the basis for extending the law isn't a legally sound one.  Since the motivation is an easy target, and not a fundamental objection to the victim's domicile-less condition, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime. 

What do you think?