Do you favor hate crimes legislation?

Suzanne · Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Tulsa World (Oklahoma)

September 4, 2009 Friday
Final Edition


	Quote: People of moral conviction, however, should oppose the hatred of people for any reason. But hate-crimes legislation doesn't stop hatred. Instead, it creates a special class of victims victims whose perpetrators receive more severe punishment for the very same physical or verbal acts that would not be as harshly punished if the crime were committed against someone who was not part of the special class. Let me give you one of many possible examples: An elderly African-American grandmother is severely beaten by a person of the same race who hates her activism against the area drug dealers. No hate crime, no special (more severe) punishment. Another elderly African-American grandmother is severely beaten by a white perpetrator who targets her because of her race. This perpetrator may have done exactly the same physical damage to the victim but would face substantially harsher punishment. No one has ever explained to me how these victims are equally protected from these perpetrators as required by our U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many conservatives are very concerned about the proposed expansion of hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. When expanded, these laws have been used in other nations to criminally prosecute individuals for speaking out against homosexual lifestyles. This proposed expansion could lead to pastors being prosecuted for biblically explaining why he or she opposes homosexual behavior. It should be understood that to many who want this law, the Bible contains "hate speech" and they would be quite satisfied with the prosecution of a pastor. Finally, some would argue that hate-crime legislation is necessary in the United States because of what occurred in World War II Germany when hate was left unchecked. To place the frequency of these crimes in our country in context, you need to know the levels of reported hate crimes here. In 2007 (the last year published), of 1.5 million violent crimes reported to the FBI by 2,025 law enforcement agencies nationwide, there were 8,999 hate crimes reported (slightly over 0.5 percent) and, of those, 1,460 (less than 0.1 percent) related to sexual orientation. As can be seen, these statistics do not reflect the level of unchecked hate that history recorded in Nazi Germany a hate that was actually sanctioned and encouraged by its government. So, for all of the above reasons, most conservatives do not support hate-crimes laws or the proposed expansion of them. James A. Williamson, of Tulsa, is an attorney and former Oklahoma state senator.

States News Service

October 16, 2009 Friday

HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION REFLECTS OUR NATIONAL IDEALS

BYLINE: States News Service

LENGTH: 658 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON


	Quote: Congress recently reached agreement on landmark legislation that brings our nation closer to living up to its ideals. Senate and House negotiators included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The act, which I helped shape as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will soon become law. The hate crimes language included in the act has passed both houses of Congress in the past. Existing law gives federal officials jurisdiction over crimes of violence which are committed because of a person's race, color, religion, and national origin. The new language adds gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability and membership in the military. The legislation is named after two Americans slain in hate crimes in 1998. Matthew Shepard was a University of Wyoming student beaten and left to die because he was gay. James Byrd Jr. was a Texas father of three dragged behind a pickup truck and killed because he was African-American. These horrible crimes were committed just months apart more than a decade ago. And unfortunately, in the years since, violent crime motivated by bias and hatred have continued to bedevil us. Between 1998 and 2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 77,000 hate crimes were committed, the FBI reports. And crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias are the fastest growing class of hate crimes. The bill would allow federal officials to step in only when local and state officials cannot or will not prosecute such cases. And it offers a number of forms of support to state and local officials seeking to prosecute hate crimes. This legislation is an important victory for those who seek to live up to our national ideal of a nation free from the threat of violence because of one's identity. Unfortunately, some have attempted to block this legislation, generally making two criticisms. The first is to claim that the legislation will outlaw certain political or religious views or speech, or prosecute "thought crimes." This is simply wrong. The law is carefully tailored to punish only violent acts, not thoughts or speech. In fact, the bill specifies that none of its provisions "shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." The second objection is to the inclusion of the hate crimes measure in the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Defense Department. Some members of Congress say the hate crimes bill is unrelated to this important defense legislation. I believe this legislation is indeed related to our national defense. First, we ensure in the legislation that members of the military are protected from hate-motivated attacks based on their military status. Second, freedom from violence motivated by hate is one of the things our men and women in uniform fight for every day. Such violent crimes motivated by hate constitute a form of domestic terror.

These are opposing views, however, a common theme does emerge from both. The theme being, the thought behind the crime. The bill is written specifically not to infringe on First Amendment rights, but the thought behind these crimes will be considered by a court. I am outraged about murders and crimes committed against any minority group, simply because of the motivation of hate. However, the perpetrators in both the Matthew Shepard murder and the James Byrd Jr. murder were all charged and punished accordingly.

However, would these murders have taken place had the victims been other than whom they were, a gay man, and a black man? I think the answer would be no. The problem becomes, what additional punishment will be attached to these crimes? And, how will the perpetrators thoughts, or motivations be weighed in the decisions by the court.

The motivation behind both of these crimes was certainly hate, and very clearly so. I do think it is possible to separate the heinous motivation, and the heinous crime in both the Shepard and the Byrd cases. And while separate, both the motivation and the crime could perceivably receive two separate charges and two separate punishments. The punishment of murder would not be greater in whole, the punishment would have two components. If a clear hate crime motivation can be proved, yes, I believe the motivation should be given a punishment separate from the crime.

Bart · Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:07 pm

Since I support capital punishment for particularly heinous acts of premeditated murder, maybe they could electrocute or gas regular murderers once, and hate crime murderers twice. :whistle:

Kevin · Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:39 am


	Bart wrote: Why not just add hate crime penalties for EVERY criminal act? Then we can avoid this confusion, eliminate mindreading by the courts, protect the "community" of all possible groups while simultaneously protecting the individual, and give equal protection under the law to all? i'm being a little fascitious of course, but only to point out how far this slippery slope can go.

You're being a lot facetious, actually... and if a person is robbed simply because he is black then yes, it may be a hate crime. If every crime was actually hate motivated then we might as well just give up... there would be no point in a legal system; everyone hates everyone; and willing to act out that hate. No, I find the argument that every crime is a potential hate crime to be too weak a one for the purposes of parody. If, however, it happened to be the case that whenever, say, a black was attacked by a white Southener it was regarded as being, definitionally, a hate crime then there would actually be reason to consider your doomsday scenario. We just aren't at that point.

Suzanne · Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:04 am

What is interesting about the Shepard case and the Byrd case, the two cases this Act is named after, is the murderers in the Shepard case received a life sentence, while in the Byrd case, the perpetrators received the death penalty. Federal hate crime legislation has been in effect since the 60’s in regards to those killings due to racial motivation. When the two cases are compared, it is clear, that the defendants in the Byrd case received a much greater sentence, than those in the Shepard case, even though the crimes were similar. All lives being equal, why should a gay man’s killer receive a lighter sentence in a hate motivated murder, while the death penalty is attached to those killings motivated by racial hate? It is clear that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Federal Hate Crime Prevention Act is an attempt to acknowledge that all persons belonging to a minority group are subject to potential hate crimes. The Act extends the current legislation to include gender, sexual orientation, persons in the military, and the disabled.

Another factor to consider is the brutality of these crimes and the element of torture. It is atypical for the average robbery/murder scenario to turn into a brutal torturing free for all.

DWill · Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:32 am


	Quote: I believe this legislation is indeed related to our national defense. First, we ensure in the legislation that members of the military are protected from hate-motivated attacks based on their military status. Second, freedom from violence motivated by hate is one of the things our men and women in uniform fight for every day. Such violent crimes motivated by hate constitute a form of domestic terror.

Thanks, Suzanne, for posting the articles. I quoted this section just because it had me scratchimg my head. Military status would designate a protected group? Not that I have seen.

My wife made a good point in talking about this with me. She thinks the value of these laws is not that they jack up penalties, but that they allow the federal government to intervene if states are not prosecuting crimes properly. Now to some, especially conservatives, this is a violation of the principle of federalism. But if you look back at the era in which hate crimes laws were first made, you can see the reason why there was thought to be a need for them. 1969 was not long after the era of civil rights struggles in which some states indeed did not prosecute crimes against blacks to the fullest extent or even to any extent. The federal government needed to be able to take over in such cases.

The question now might be whether we still need to have this check on the states' conduct in these judicial matters. Maybe we do; at least, it seems wise to have the option.

This is not the controversial part, though, obviously. What rankles some people is the additional jail time for hate crimes. The Matthew Shepherd Act doesn't, by the way, speak about the additional sentence length. The mandate for that was contained in previously passed legislation. (Sidebar: isn't it weird that the Shepherd Act is included in the Defense Approppriations Bill? This shows the ways of Washington, where if you want to vote for the F-22 fighter plane, you have to go along with a totally unrelated addition to the law.)

Maybe the bottom line here goes as Bart indicated. If stigmatizing some crimes as hate crimes, and increasing the penalties for them, reduces this type of crime and with it the level of irrational hatred in our society, they could be worthwhile. But we just don't know whether that will be the case. And if such laws aren't effective, it's not as if nothing is lost. There are risks to using the law to influence the thoughts of citizens.

etudiant · Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:05 am

I also think the issue goes beyond individual consequences for a crime, to the idea of society attempting to shape behavior in accord with presently held values. This can be a good thing, although obviously not without its pitfalls.

In Canada, there is an anti-stalking law, which tries to address the problem of violence against women. This is a topic that was somewhat buried in the past, but now there is more of a social consensus that more needs to be done to address it. A few years ago this sort of legislation would have been considered a little over the top, if not way out in left field. Today it seems to be the view of the majority that this is how it should be, and that communities do have a right to come up with sanctions to enforce their viewpoints.

Those who use a gun in commission of a crime in this jurisdiction face an extra add-on to their sentence, regardless of other circumstances. This is an attempt to curb guns in society. Now one could make the argument that if a victim was killed with a baseball bat during a robbery, he is just as dead as if he were shot to death, and the two scenarios should face the same punishment. And in that individual case, yes that is so. But taking a broader view, one could make a strong case that baseball bats are far less problematic than guns in society. If a law is successful in curbing their use, then potentially at least, all benefit.

I think in the case of minorities, there is really no way around having some sort of guaranteeing legislation. In a democracy, the majority rules, which is good in principle, but it leaves others open to abuse. Jews have experienced this over and over in Europe, culminating in the holocaust. In North America, aboriginals have in the past felt the sensation of being on the short end of the stick. And if you were looking for employment in the Deep South today, would you prominently state that you were an atheist?

johnson1010 · Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:02 pm

I don't think additional penalties should be applied simply because a person was a certain race, however, it is paramount that crimes be recognized as crimes, regardless of the victim, or perpetrator.

KBR contractors in iraq were getting away with rape because the company was being trusted to police itself. As though signing a contract should enable your employer to determine whether or not your rape counts!

It is also imperative that people who incite others to crime, such as Manson, are held culpable, even if they never held the knife.

Suzanne · Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:27 am

The New York Times

July 18, 2009 Saturday
Late Edition - Final

Senate Votes to Add Sexual Orientation to Hate Crime Protections

BYLINE: By CARL HULSE


	Quote: The Senate is scheduled to consider more hate crime provisions on Monday. Among them is a Republican plan to impose the death penalty for certain acts.

I found this, and I do believe that the additional punishment will be the death penalty. It is clear that this legislation was created due to the Shepard case that it is named for. One of the defendants in the Shepard case received a conviction for felony murder. In essence, Shepard died while this defendant was robbing him. Apparently, after beating him, then tying him to the fence, the defendants robbed his house. This was the highest charge available to the state, had Shepard lived, this defendant could have gotten off with a very minimal charge. I do think that this is the reasoning behind the Act. Under this Act, crimes, such as in the Shepard case would be given Federal jurisdiction and the penalties would be uniform across the country. And since James Byrd is also attached to this Act, it’s clear to me, the death penalty will be attached to those convicted of a hate crime against other minority groups. Since the United States Supreme Court hears all death penalty cases, it should be interesting to learn what the Justices hold regarding their first case. A very slipery slope.


	Quote: Once they dispose of the hate crime proposals, the Senate is set to consider as part of the Pentagon bill a Republican plan to allow those permitted to carry concealed weapons in one state to take the firearm into other states without violating any laws. It is the latest gun-rights issue to surface in Congress.

I found this contained in the same article, what do you think about this issue?

Suzanne · Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:18 am

DWILL wrote:


	Quote: Sidebar: isn't it weird that the Shepherd Act is included in the Defense Approppriations Bill? This shows the ways of Washington, where if you want to vote for the F-22 fighter plane, you have to go along with a totally unrelated addition to the law.)

Quid Pro Quo

Sidebar: :smile:

you're too funny

Kevin · Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:23 pm

Obama signs hate crime bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/ ... index.html

LanDroid · Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:14 am


	Bart wrote: :hmm: Since I support capital punishment for particularly heinous acts of premeditated murder...

You bring up another instance of "thought crime" that few people disagree with. The victim is just as dead, but the perp receives additional penalties for what they were thinking: whether or not he or she planned the killing in advance. In the other direction I think sentences for those who murder during a "crime of passion" receive lighter sentences. So the principle of sentencing based partly on the state of mind of the perpetrator is well established. However I doubt anyone who questions increased sentences for bias motivated crimes wants to do away with similar considerations such as premeditation or crimes of passion.

Forum rules

Do you favor hate crimes legislation? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!