Reader Query: Is Eco-Terror Legislation a Good Idea?

Amos the Poker Cat asked a good question a while back (see comments), but I am only getting to it now.

The question revolves around a state law that criminalizes "eco-terror." I suspect that Amos asks my view because of the book. So here goes.

Like similar laws regarding hate crimes and domestic violence, motive-specific laws pose serious dilemmas. For instance, burning a cross on someone's lawn does not do a whole lot more physical damage than stealing someone's car, but there is something particularly repugnant about the former action. Right-thinking people know that the idea behind cross-burning is to intimidate. That it goes beyond arson or vandalism and becomes something worse.

The same holds for smacking your wife. The same bit of physical aggression might be a minor transgression in a bar room or in a high-school hallway. But in the home, when it is intended as part of a larger campaign of violence, we reserve a special distaste for it. And therefore special injunctions against it.

That being said, I am a libertarian fellow and view specially crafted legislation with some degree of suspicion. My preferred method would be to increase the maximum punishment for vandalism and arson and trespassing and allow judges to impose stronger sentences when intimidation is part of the offense, whether it involves racial, ethnic, domestic or environmental undertones.

That doesn't end it, of course. The courts spent decades doling out light sentences to wife-beaters and gay-bashers, falling back on the good-ole "boys will be boys" mentality. So some special considerations were in order.

Is that the case with eco-terror? I am not sure. But I do know this: The 2002 eco-attack on the U.S. Forest Service's research station in Irvine, Pennsylvania, went beyond a few kids protesting federal logging policies. It did $700,000 in damage, and the people involved threatened to shoot people. To kill them. That's bullshit. It was the most radical threat ever made by the Earth Liberation Front. And it happened right here in Pennsylvania. That's a little different than painting an anarchist symbol on a mailbox. It is part of a larger campaign to intimidate people involved in forestry.

If current law does not allow a judge to take that into consideration when deciding on a sentence, the law ought to change. I am not sure the eco-terror legislation in question is the best way to do that, or if it is really necessary at all. I am also concerned that special interests might use it to quell more peaceable protests. But this is serious stuff and it deserves special attention.

Comments

[sean mcdaniel]

well, unless i'm not reading the same news as you, the PG report of the ELF attack is nearly as hyped up as the smoking editorial. (if you don't think so, then how do you really say it's legit to compare 8/11/02 to 9/11/01? or maybe we could refer to the incident as the beginning ofthe ELF Holocaust). as far as i can remember, the ELFanatics haven't don't anything so drastic since then. and for a historical perspective, student radicals in 1970 set of a bomb in a van next to a U. of Wisconsin building that housed an Army Math Project, killing a janitor inside the building. According to some reports it was the most powerful vehicle bombing in U.S. history, even taking the Oklahoma City bombing into account. the point is, if you want, everything can be a special category crime, unless you kill a rich white guy.

[Sam M]

Sean,

I agree with you on most counts. And I think I wrote as much.

No. The People from ELF have not followed through on their threats. It appears that the escalation was sort of a trial balloon. To see what the rank and file in the movement thought of taking things a bit further. It was not well received. At least that's what I heard from the ELF press office when I contacted them.

So why didn't I include that in the op-ed? Well, I didn't write it as an historical retrospective. I wrote it when the thing happened. When it wasn't at all clear whether the rank and file would accept the cal to arms or not. It was not clear at the time that they would not. I am glad that they didn't. But I am not going to apologize for raising the alarm. Hell. Even the ELF press office was taken aback by the threat.

So what to make of the the new anti-eco-terror legislation? I thought I made it clear that I think it might go too far. That there are problems with it. Dangers. Etc. And I thought I made it clear that if current laws against vandalism and trespassing do the trick and allow for stern treatment of violators, I am fine with that.

So to be even more clear: I am against new laws if the current ones work.

I am for new laws if the current ones treat burning down the research station the same as they would treat a smashed mailbox or graffiti.

We don't know which is the case, because I don't think a lot of these things have been prosecuted in Pennsylvania yet. They are still pretty new here, after all. So the jury is out.

[sean mcdaniel]

Graffiti! I'm all for cutting off the tip of the index finger to the first knuckle for anyone caught tagging anything for any reason! yeah, i'm almost half serious about that one.