A Crime is A Crime, Folks

I'm signed up for Townhall's e-mail list for conservatives and they send me something about once a week. Most of the time, I pay little attention but considering my views on ecoterrorists, one stood out in today's mailing.

SUV Owners of America support the STOP Act

Rep. Chris Chocola of Indiana introduced the Stop Terrorism of Property (STOP) Act of 2003 legislation on Thursday, October 16 that would make acts of environmental terrorism a federal crime. This bill would send a clear and direct message to groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) that their hate-filled, destructive activities - such as their recent attacks on a Santa Fe, New Mexico Land Rover dealership and to U.S. Forest Service equipment - will not be tolerated.

The bill's text, as I found it in THOMAS, reads thusly:

Stop Terrorism of Property Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 3307 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3307

To amend title 18, United States Code, to create the Federal crime of eco-terrorism.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 16, 2003

Mr. CHOCOLA (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. COLE, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PORTER, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. RENZI, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. CARTER, Mr. ENGLISH, Ms. HART, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. OTTER, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WICKER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. NEY, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. GIBBONS, and Mr. NUNES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to create the Federal crime of eco-terrorism.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the 'Stop Terrorism of Property Act of 2003'.

  SEC. 2. ECO-TERRORISM.

• (a) OFFENSE- Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

  'Sec. 2339D. Eco-terrorism

• 'Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, intentionally damages the property of another with the intent to influence the public with regard to conduct the offender considers harmful to the environment shall--
  • '(1) if death results from the conduct constituting the offense, be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life;

  • '(2) if serious bodily injury results from the conduct constituting the offense, be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 10 years; and

  • '(3) in any other case, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

• (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
  • '2339D. Eco-terrorism.'.

Should the destruction of property in order to change environment-impacting behavior be a federal crime? I don't think so.

First of all, I see this as additional abuse on an already greatly-abused clause of the Constitution. Don't expand the Commerce Clause to extend the reach of the federal government in criminal matters.

Next, if we are going to have federal criminal statutes, their jurisdiction should be restricted to federal property and federal workers. Otherwise, the states and local government are better suited for enforcing primary criminal laws such as those against murder and theft.

More importantly, I oppose efforts to punish specific criminal behavior when laws already in effect take care of the broader range of that behavior. Vandalism, larceny, sabotage, assault, extortion and blackmail...these are all criminal offenses across the country. Why treat politically motivated crime different? If deliberate property damage occurs, throw the book at them. And if you feel the penalties for doing those things aren't high enough, you don't need to create a new crime to deal with them when they are fundamentally the same as the other crimes. It's identical to so-called hate crime laws where you are punished extra-hard if it is found that you acted out of bigotry or hatred based on race, religion, or whatever.

A better message to send to would-be criminals is that property rights violations are not tolerable in this country. Whatever form they take. Once we start punishing people for their political beliefs, we start getting political prisoners. Stick with the basics. A crime is a crime.

Posted by Drizzten at February 18, 2004 09:09 AM