We've been publishing a series of articles on the general topic of Hate Crimes and Assaults here on the Loper Website. As a part of this series, we are interviewing people with something to share - insight, opinion, even more questions - and will publish these interviews from time to time. The framework for the interviews is a questionnaire, but we will not slavishly force each interview to follow a prescribed format - ideas flow too freely for that.

Dave Sagarin interview with Charles Lancaster

Should there be Hate Crime laws?

I'm agin' 'em - it's the sense that there's not a need to elevate or differentiate among offenses. I think that in general the courts and judges ought to have broad discretion in judging.

And no two crimes are alike. You've got [a crime committed by] a first offender vs. [the same crime if it's committed by] a subsequent offender. You've got a crime [committed] by a youth vs. [the same crime] committed by an older offender. I think it's futile to try to build [all of] this into a code

Three strikes laws, drug kingpin and federal sentencing mandatories - they don't give judges enough discretion, to take the recommendation of the jury and come up with a reasonable sentence.

[In fact] having the [Hate Crime] laws seems to lead to the situation that we had in Charlottesville with the Ku Klux Klan and everybody jumping in, wanting to see Hate Crime prosecutions if there's any implication of race [in the offense].

Are you familiar with the proposal to use Restorative Justice in Charlottesville in the future, for minor offenses by juveniles?

One of the things I've done in the past is been involved in mediation - in business and in divorce. Restorative justice is akin to mediation - put people in conflict in a room, to listen to each other - it's the same thing: put them together. Here there could be, in the best of circumstances, a reconciliation.

Is an approach of this type useful for both the offender and for the victim?

On the part of the offender … often, criminal offenders do not have any appreciation of the consequences of their acts. I practiced law in Texas for a few years - I was a defense attorney, and we drew lots to defend indigents. Many of the people I defended could barely think ahead to their next meal. I never found any of them who thought of the consequences to the victim.

For the victim - I think it has to be linked to some form of restitution. A judge could order … not just community service or probation, but …

Mow the lawn?

Yes, mow the lawn. Or a money payment, or something like that.

Do you support this primarily for juveniles offenders and minor offenses?

Juveniles would probably benefit more … Where's the best chance to divert someone from further crime? They're the low-hanging fruit.

I think there could be benefits beyond [those to] juveniles, but the consequences have to be weighed.

All things considered, do you feel the outcome to the assaults in Charlottesville has been a good one, so far?

I do think so. These were youthful offenders, so there is hope that they can learn something from the experience. And, thank goodness, the damage was healable - they didn't kill anybody - it was assault and battery, but not causing permanent injury. And I think [a lot of] what has happened [can be viewed as] a process of restitution. (May 13, 2002)

Charles Lancaster is a management consultant; he was a defense attorney early in his career.