Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Empty Symbolism of Hate Crimes Legislation
Why the Matthew Shepard Act won't help prevent future hate crimes
Federal law enforcement officials are not plagued by idleness these days, thanks to the demands on their time from terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, Ponzi schemers, and crooked politicians. But Congress never stops trying to ensure full employment for FBI agents and U.S. attorneys. The latest stimulus is the Matthew Shepard Act, billed as an overdue effort to prevent violence against gays and lesbians.
The logic behind the proposed measure is hard to follow. Says sponsoring Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), "No members of society—none—deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation." Which raises the question: Who exactly does deserve to be the victim of a violent crime?
The bill targets actions we would all like to eliminate—physically injuring or trying to injure someone with "fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device." But it's hard to imagine that it would reduce the prevalence of such conduct, which is already 1) really, really illegal and 2) subject to harsh penalties.
This legislation would add extra punishment for attacks designated as hate crimes. But if a criminal is not deterred by the fear of five years behind bars, he's probably not going to be pushed onto the straight and narrow by the prospect of six.
In the case of attacks like the one on Matthew Shepard, a gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998, the statute would be superfluous. His killers were eligible for the death penalty, though both made deals that assured they would be locked up for the rest of their lives. For the most horrific hate crimes, the change would accomplish absolutely nothing.
That's not the only way in which it would constitute an exercise in irrelevance. Already, 45 states have hate crime laws, and two-thirds of them include crimes against gays and lesbians. In the remaining states, you will be relieved to know, such attacks are punished as violent felonies.
The old rationale for federal hate crimes legislation was that bigoted local cops and prosecutors were ignoring vicious assaults on minorities. But supporters have to admit things have changed. The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, notes that "85 percent of law enforcement officials surveyed recognize bias motivated violence to be more serious than similar crimes not motivated by bias."
The existing law is mostly a curiosity, since it applies only to hate crimes in which the attacker singles out a victim on the basis of race, religion, or national origin and is trying to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six federally protected activities—going to a public school, applying for a job, serving as a grand juror, and so on. Even in the most vicious cases, notes Jonathan Godfrey, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, an attacker can't be convicted "unless he is proved to have possessed both these intents."
Sen. Kennedy wants to eliminate these restrictions because they make it hard for the feds to go after hate crimes. But the change might not go down well at the Supreme Court. In 1995, it overturned the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 for exceeding Congress' authority over crime, which the court said is properly a responsibility of state and local governments.
So a federal hate crimes law may go from being a ban on extremely rare offenses to being unconstitutional. Some achievement.
That aside, expanding the law will not expand the number of hours in a day for the people who have to enforce it. The FBI says it could add hundreds of thousands of cases to its workload. Barring an increase in budgets and staffing, one of two things will happen: The feds will neglect other serious crimes that they now pursue, or they will neglect hate crimes. Which should it be?
Fortunately, any hate crimes passed over by the FBI can be tackled by local police and prosecutors. The Human Rights Campaign acknowledges that even if supporters of the bill get their way, "the vast majority of these crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state level."
If federal licensing laws required disclosure of the ingredients in congressional legislation, here's what the label on this one would say: 90 grams of empty symbolism and 10 grams of needless duplication.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Bonus video: During House deliberations over the hate-crimes bill, Rep. Alcee Hastings reads a list of fetishes that would be covered under the legislation.
ed|5.11.09 @ 7:46AM|#
A pointless piece of legislation, sponsored by an almost-dead lefty icon, named after a dead gay icon. You cannot stop it. You can only hope to contain it.
Fist of Etiquette|5.11.09 @ 7:59AM|#
This is yet another reason my proposal of term limits on federal
laws makes sense. One day everyone is going to actually realize how
stupid (and dangerous) all this feelgood legislation is, and
they're still going to be afraid to overturn it. It's easier to let
bad law lapse than to vote to repeal it.
We can't stop the bad laws (or lawmakers, apparently) but we can
limit their lasting impact.
Kyle Jordan|5.11.09 @ 8:00AM|#
Just what we need. More laws designed to make people feel better about themselves and their ineffective government.
Gilbert Martin|5.11.09 @ 8:04AM|#
Empty symbolism is stock and trade for liberals.
In fact, that's pretty much all they've got.
|5.11.09 @ 8:04AM|#
Just what we need. More laws designed to make people feel better about themselves and their ineffective government.
Yeah, right, you just don't want to be charged with a hate crime when you're committing violent felonies ;).
avant-garde anarch|5.11.09 @ 8:18AM|#
Why only violent crimes? Racially motivated embezzling is an outrage!
jester|5.11.09 @ 8:26AM|#
Rapes committed where the victim is a totally hot babe...as in "She was so hot, I just had to make sweet love to her, whether she wanted it or not"
jester|5.11.09 @ 8:30AM|#
Racially motivated embezzlitation involves the love of money. Clearly NOT a h8 crime.
anarch on a progressive streak|5.11.09 @ 8:31AM|#
And what about robbing people in wheelchairs?
Also, I don't see age in that list; I know I was mugged as a kid
because I was a kid. And what about degree of sobriety (rolling a
drunk), intelligence (Yo, get that dumb guy), agility (Bet I'm
unbelievably more fleet-footed than him)?
jester, sovereign immunity already covers that.
anarch as Solon|5.11.09 @ 8:32AM|#
jester, the point is that if you yell a racial epithet while smacking down a guy, you draw more time, so why not if your keeping two sets of books on him?
Kyle Jordan|5.11.09 @ 8:41AM|#
"Yeah, right, you just don't want to be charged with a hate
crime when you're committing violent felonies ;)."
Exactly! I mean, of all the violent felonies that I've committed in
the past, none have been against people I hate! I mean, targeting
random strangers and innocents allows me to do what I have to do,
but not get carried away. If they were someone I didn't like, man,
I might go too far. No charges of Aggravated Rape or Forced Sodomy
with the victim's femur for me!
The above post was a joke by the way. My crimes are all petty
misdemeanors...
|5.11.09 @ 8:49AM|#
What about "mild dislike" crimes?
Or my favorite racially-motivated economic "crime":
Koreans controling the Black hair products market.
not the real jb|5.11.09 @ 9:17AM|#
What scares me more about this is the lefty slant on the word
"hate." Huff Post had a blogger point out how he could feel so much
"hate" at the tea party he attended.
We are watching Newspeak at work: Make an already-pejorative term
the target of good-feeling legislation, then assign it to your
opposition.
Libertarians need to watch out too because, in this two-party
system, it won't be republicans that are labeled, but any
non-democrat.
How many of you have had people assume you're republican just
because you criticized BO?
P Dier|5.11.09 @ 9:34AM|#
If you're gonna beat the shit out of somebody, you better make DAMN sure that they're the same color as you!
|5.11.09 @ 9:40AM|#
This is yet another reason my proposal of term limits on
federal laws makes sense.
Indeed (though it's been proposed by a lot of people). Also, seeing
as how a lot of this feel-good legislation is being able to brag to
your constituents about the wonderful laws you passed to protect
the children etc.
I'm sure lawmakers would support a "sunset amendment" to the
Constitution if it was framed as a way to give them the chance to
vote to ban child molestation and rape every five years or
whatever. Lobbyists and special interests would hate it, though, so
I'm sure they'd find a way to strangle it in the crib.
Seriously, there are a ton of problems with our government that
would be solved by this.
Jaydub|5.11.09 @ 10:01AM|#
I am flummoxed at the notion that making a law against something
_twice_ somehow helps.
It's illegal to assault someone. So now, it's illegal twice. Great,
like anyone will care. People busted for a joint in their pocket
still do more time than a rapist anyways, thanks to the war on
drugs.
|5.11.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Isn't the only real reason to enact this kind of legislation to be able to evade the prohibition on double jeopardy?
|5.11.09 @ 10:08AM|#
People busted for a joint in their pocket still do more time
than a rapist anyways, thanks to the war on drugs.
I guess then that hate crimes legislation are just a way of making
sure that at least some rapists serve as much time as drug
violators.
|5.11.09 @ 10:15AM|#
I'm sure lawmakers would support a "sunset amendment" to the
Constitution
If they're smart, they will. It sets up a massive
lobbying/fundraising opportunity for them every few years, as it
resurrects every hot button issue for another bloody round.
Getcher popcorn ready!
Fist of Etiquette|5.11.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Indeed (though it's been proposed by a lot of people).
You just can't even let me have this one thing, can you?
KipEsquire|5.11.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Once again we see Chapman's faux libertarian outrage erupt only
where gays are concerned.
If you're going to curse dual sovereignty, then more power to you.
But don't use the soft bigotry of "geez, the gays again?" as a
foot-in-the-door to do it.
Either be a libertarian and oppose all dual sovereignty crimes (and
not just the one covering expansion to include sexual orientation)
-- or be a libertarian and embrace the notion that a law meant to
protect insular minorities should no longer exclude the most
insular minority of all.
Chuck Anziulewicz|5.11.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Steve Chapman calls hate crimes legislation "empty symbolism"
that won't prevent future hate crimes. I'm wondering where he has
been for the past 40 years that the law has been in effect? Why all
the wailing and gnashing of teeth NOW?
People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to
include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way)
will "criminalize" a person's thoughts. The current hate crimes law
has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years
has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against
members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been
invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have
been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used
against them.
But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice
against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack a
person's person or property. I don't care if Pat Robertson, James
Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective
until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a
justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that's a different
story.
Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes
against property: There's a big moral and ethical difference
between someone who spraypaints a "tag" on a highway overpass, and
someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a
synagogue.
Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal
hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I'll
continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being
considered as pretty disingenuous.
Fist of Etiquette|5.11.09 @ 10:53AM|#
If you couple a sunset amendment with a term limits amendment (it would be two clauses seperated by some oddly placed punctuation) and timed it right, then we could guarantee a whole new set of congressional a-holes voting on these laws. Some of them might even read up on the impact of each expiring law before voting on it.
|5.11.09 @ 10:57AM|#
But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal
prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to
attack a person's person or property.
Indeed there is. Attacking a person or their property is a crime,
prosecutable without any reference to the political or social
attitudes of the perpetrator.
Hate crimes laws are either (a) redundant and useless appendages on
the law or (b) the criminalization of thought and speech. Which of
those, again, is laudable or even defensible?
|5.11.09 @ 11:12AM|#
The current hate crimes law has been on the books since
1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted
for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious
group.
A couple questions for the logic challenged individual who penned
the demonstrably false statement above.
What evidence is used to trigger hate
crime prosecutions?
How was it determined by a jury that the extra punishment required
by this legislation was warranted?
Oh yeah, it must have been something someone said or wrote.
|5.11.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I think the idea is that a crime motivated by bigotry against a
minority is to some degree more reprehensible than the same crime
perpetrated against a person randomly. I'm not a big proponent of
such legislation, but if it exists it needs to cover gays. And
there is a certain practical logic to the idea that a crime whose
target is an entire minority group should be punished more severely
than one aimed at an individual alone.
Of course why address it at all when you can retreat to the
standard "this wouldn't be relevant if I were king of libertopia"
stance.
|5.11.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I'm not a big proponent of such legislation, but if it
exists it needs to cover gays.
A more perfect example of the slippery slope in action I have never
seen.
|5.11.09 @ 11:42AM|#
The purpose of the bill is one that should worry civil
libertarians: it is to get around constitutional protections
against double jeopardy by prosecuting people found innocent in
state court all over again in federal court (a loophole in
Constitutional double-jeopardy protections known as the "dual
sovereignty" doctrine permits this).
For example, backers of the bill like MALDEF and the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights want to reprosecute Pennsylvania
teenagers acquitted by a state court of committing a hate crime
against an illegal alien. (see the May 5 blog post at
civilrights.org, the blog of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights).
Similarly, left-wing lawyers have called for reprosecuting the Duke
University lacrosse players after the prosecution against them in
state court was dropped (see the Volokh Conspiracy blog comment
thread about the Duke Lacrosse case for one such example).
Here's the civilrights.org blog post advocating
reprosecution:
http://www.civilrights.org/
archives/
2009/05/317-shenandoah.html
Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law
Needed
May 5, 2009 - Posted by Corrine Yu
On Friday, a jury acquitted two teenagers of serious charges,
including ethnic intimidation, in the fatal beating of Luiz
Ramirez, a 25 year-old Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, Pa., last
July.
Police say that the teenagers used ethnic slurs as they repeatedly
punched Ramirez, knocked him to the ground, and then kicked him
several times in the head. Ramirez died of his injuries two days
later.
Hate crimes against Latinos have been increasing since 2003,
according to FBI data. Civil rights groups said that this increase
correlates closely to the increasingly heated debate over
immigration reform and a rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric on radio,
television, and the Internet.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which will provide local
authorities with more resources to combat hate crimes and give
federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in
states where the current law is inadequate.
"[T] his verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this
Act," said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president and general
counsel. "It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and
bring justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that
violence targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
The Justice Department is currently investigating whether to
prosecute the two teenagers under federal civil rights
statutes.
Categories: Hate Crimes & LLEHCPA
Here's one example of an argument that the Duke Lacrosse players
should have been prosecuted in federal court:
http://volokh.com/
posts/
1180129165.shtml#222364
Frank Boyle:
The Duke professors can't be blamed for the failed prosecution,
which they had no control over.
Nifong was, in equal measure, overzealous and ineffective,
contaminating the case.
Too bad there wasn't a federal hate crimes law in place. Then a
more competent federal prosecutor could have picked up the pieces,
after the state prosecutors dropped the case.
A federal hate crimes law would allow federal prosecutors, who are
often of better quality than their state counterparts, to salvage a
hate-crimes prosecution after state prosecutors sabotage their case
to the point that it has to be dropped or an acquittal
results.
It would also help redress the structural racism of state justice
systems, which are often permeated by institutional racism.
Anyway, those of us who are lawyers shouldn't expect humanities
professors to know every nuance of the law and weigh every particle
of evidence about a particular case before speaking out on general
themes of race, class, and gender.
|5.11.09 @ 11:47AM|#
There is not a big moral or ethical difference between spraypainting a tag on a highway overpass and spraypainting swastikas on the front of a synagogue. In fact, there is no difference.
Joe456|5.11.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Here's my devil's advocate question. Aren't some crimes already punished more harshly, depending on the motive, than others? E.g. The only difference between 1st and 2nd degree kidnapping, is if you do it for money, its 1st degree, otherwise, 2nd degree (at least, in New York State). I'm sure there are more examples of this, where the intent of the criminal impacts the type of crime he can be guily of. How about it?
|5.11.09 @ 1:39PM|#
What percentage of Black on White rapes, muggings and robberies
are motivated in part by the hate speech of racists like President
Obama's mentor Reverend Wright?
Just asking?
|5.11.09 @ 1:41PM|#
A more perfect example of the slippery slope in action I
have never seen.
Why is that? First the gays, next polygamists and chimpanzees?
Something like that?
jaydub|5.11.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Parker | May 11, 2009, 1:39pm | #
What percentage of Black on White rapes, muggings and robberies are
motivated in part by the hate speech of racists like President
Obama's mentor Reverend Wright?
Just asking?
And by asking, you may have committed a crime.
jaydub|5.11.09 @ 1:43PM|#
ed | May 11, 2009, 12:30pm | #
the slippery slope in action
Watch it, buddy. That's protected behavior.
Slippery slopes are going the way of lawn darts: for government use
only.
Couldn't resist.
|5.11.09 @ 2:05PM|#
If Rush dies of kidney failure is everyone who laughed going to
be prosecuted for hate crimes - or just the joke teller?
Just asking.
|5.11.09 @ 2:09PM|#
The mere fact Ted Kennedy is anywhere around this makes it all the more comical and full of shit legislation. Oh to wake up and find out that sack of Mass. shit is dead I will dance naked in my yard.
|5.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Tony wonders Why is that?
It is because you are lackadaisical in your support (and thought),
i.e. you figure if there is a questionable justification for such
in the first place it must be okay to extend it. Kinda like the way
prosecutors use the Patriot Act for non-terrorist prosecutions -
well, sure it wasn't intended for this, but hey, we can
use it anyway.
By the way, slippery sloping your way from gays to chimps is a
whole lot of kinky.
|5.11.09 @ 4:00PM|#
This hate crimes legislature gets worse
===============
LAW OF THE LAND
'Pedophile Protection Act': What's next for hate crimes?
On the fast track: Judiciary panel schedules hearing for bill
Tuesday
Posted: May 10, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas
WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a
hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say,
provides special protections for pedophiles and others with
alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and
exhibitionism.
Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual
advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.
"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important
civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of
our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.
But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman,
and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably
committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony
hate crime.
"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.
Akers' analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of
"virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it
appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and
traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists."
Critics also have expressed alarm because in committee hearings
Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted
under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone
heard the comments and then committed a crime.
"Under [the plan] the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere
membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as
evidence of his or her biased motive," Akers said.
He said there's already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those
pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups ... to
create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of
association."
see link for entire article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97676
|5.11.09 @ 4:08PM|#
The below bill introduced by Linda Sanchez is more draconian
than the hate crimes legislature
==================
Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in
House)
HR 1966 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1966
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to
cyberbullying.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or
cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic
means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both.
HR1966
---------------------------
If this bill becomes law the Federal government could imprison
anyone they choose just by saying that that person "transmitted...
any form of "communication" that the Federal government determined
to be "hostile behavior".
HR1966 is the most draconian piece of legislature proposed yet
during Obama's reign.
---------------------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966:
|5.11.09 @ 4:09PM|#
It is because you are lackadaisical in your support (and
thought), i.e. you figure if there is a questionable justification
for such in the first place it must be okay to extend
it.
Not at all. I am ambivalent about such laws, but if they exist I'm
not ambivalent about whether they should incorporate gays in
addition to other minorities. It's sort of like the marriage
debate. I could entertain the idea that gov't getting out of
marriage altogether is the best solution. But since that's not the
case right now, to the extent that government is involved it
shouldn't discriminate.
|5.11.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Tony, this bill doesn't just add sexual orientation. That's a
very small part of the bill.
It also radically expands the law beyond just those hate crimes
that interfere with federally protected activities (as is the case
under current law) to virtually all hate-crimes, leading to
overlapping state and federal jurisdiction for a vast number of
crimes.
The purpose of the bill is one that should worry civil
libertarians: it is to get around constitutional protections
against double jeopardy by prosecuting people found innocent in
state court all over again in federal court (a loophole in
Constitutional double-jeopardy protections known as the "dual
sovereignty" doctrine permits this).
For example, backers of the bill like MALDEF and the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights want to reprosecute Pennsylvania
teenagers acquitted by a state court of committing a hate crime
against an illegal alien. (see the May 5 blog post at
civilrights.org, the blog of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights).
Similarly, left-wing lawyers have called for reprosecuting the Duke
University lacrosse players after the prosecution against them in
state court was dropped (see the Volokh Conspiracy blog comment
thread about the Duke Lacrosse case for one such example).
Here's the civilrights.org blog post advocating
reprosecution:
http://www.civilrights.org/
archives/
2009/05/317-shenandoah.html
Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law
Needed
May 5, 2009 - Posted by Corrine Yu
On Friday, a jury acquitted two teenagers of serious charges,
including ethnic intimidation, in the fatal beating of Luiz
Ramirez, a 25 year-old Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, Pa., last
July.
Police say that the teenagers used ethnic slurs as they repeatedly
punched Ramirez, knocked him to the ground, and then kicked him
several times in the head. Ramirez died of his injuries two days
later.
Hate crimes against Latinos have been increasing since 2003,
according to FBI data. Civil rights groups said that this increase
correlates closely to the increasingly heated debate over
immigration reform and a rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric on radio,
television, and the Internet.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which will provide local
authorities with more resources to combat hate crimes and give
federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in
states where the current law is inadequate.
"[T] his verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this
Act," said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president and general
counsel. "It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and
bring justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that
violence targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
The Justice Department is currently investigating whether to
prosecute the two teenagers under federal civil rights
statutes.
Categories: Hate Crimes & LLEHCPA
Here's one example of an argument that the Duke Lacrosse players
should have been prosecuted in federal court:
http://volokh.com/
posts/
1180129165.shtml#222364
Frank Boyle:
The Duke professors can't be blamed for the failed prosecution,
which they had no control over.
Nifong was, in equal measure, overzealous and ineffective,
contaminating the case.
Too bad there wasn't a federal hate crimes law in place. Then a
more competent federal prosecutor could have picked up the pieces,
after the state prosecutors dropped the case.
A federal hate crimes law would allow federal prosecutors, who are
often of better quality than their state counterparts, to salvage a
hate-crimes prosecution after state prosecutors sabotage their case
to the point that it has to be dropped or an acquittal
results.
It would also help redress the structural racism of state justice
systems, which are often permeated by institutional racism.
Anyway, those of us who are lawyers shouldn't expect humanities
professors to know every nuance of the law and weigh every particle
of evidence about a particular case before speaking out on general
themes of race, class, and gender.
|5.11.09 @ 6:06PM|#
The problem with this bill is that it's a FEDERAL hate crimes
bill, and that it creates broad, overlapping concurrent state and
federal jurisdiction over hate crimes.
It radically expands the law beyond just those hate crimes that
interfere with federally protected activities (as is the case under
current law) to virtually all hate-crimes, leading to overlapping
state and federal jurisdiction for a vast number of crimes. The
addition of sexual-orientation is one of the smallest, and least
objectionable, parts of the bill.
The purpose of the federal hate-crimes bill is one that should
worry civil libertarians: it is to get around constitutional
protections against double jeopardy by prosecuting people found
innocent in state court all over again in federal court (a loophole
in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections known as the "dual
sovereignty" doctrine permits this).
For example, backers of the bill like MALDEF and the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights want to reprosecute Pennsylvania
teenagers acquitted by a state court of committing a hate crime
against an illegal alien. (see the May 5 blog post at
civilrights.org, the blog of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, "Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal
Law Needed"; "[T]his verdict underscores the importance of the
passage of this Act," said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president
and general counsel.").
Similarly, left-wing lawyers have called for reprosecuting the Duke
University lacrosse players after the prosecution against them in
state court was dropped (see the Volokh Conspiracy blog comment
thread about the Duke Lacrosse case for one such example).
Here's one example of the disturbing argument that the Duke
Lacrosse players should have been prosecuted in federal
court:
http://volokh.com/
posts/
1180129165.shtml#222364
"Frank Boyle:
The Duke professors can't be blamed for the failed prosecution,
which they had no control over.
Nifong was, in equal measure, overzealous and ineffective,
contaminating the case.
Too bad there wasn't a federal hate crimes law in place. Then a
more competent federal prosecutor could have picked up the pieces,
after the state prosecutors dropped the case.
A federal hate crimes law would allow federal prosecutors, who are
often of better quality than their state counterparts, to salvage a
hate-crimes prosecution after state prosecutors sabotage their case
to the point that it has to be dropped or an acquittal
results.
It would also help redress the structural racism of state justice
systems, which are often permeated by institutional racism.
Anyway, those of us who are lawyers shouldn't expect humanities
professors to know every nuance of the law and weigh every particle
of evidence about a particular case before speaking out on general
themes of race, class, and gender."
|5.11.09 @ 6:30PM|#
So any angry lefist protester who pushes and shoves, or throws a
pie or a rock or a bottle, or smashes a window while expressing
their hatred and intolerance for WTO capitalists or conservative
speakers should now be charged with a "hate crime" as well as
assualt, disturbing the peace, etc.
Interesting (but stupid!).
|5.11.09 @ 6:57PM|#
First of all I totally disagree with hate crimes
legislation.
But I still can't believe you guys are citing that completely BS
and viciously bigoted argument that somehow expanding it to include
LGBT means it includes all sorts of harmful sexual disorders.
That's just patently false. Both Congress and the APA only define
orientation as consisting of straight, gay, bi, or asexual.
Please don't quote hateful whackjobs, it only undermines the very
valid arguments against federal hate crimes legislation.
perilisk|5.11.09 @ 8:10PM|#
"Why is that? First the gays, next polygamists and chimpanzees?
Something like that?"
Worse, emo lamers.
|5.12.09 @ 6:28PM|#
I don't understand. First your article states the law would be a ban on extremely rare offenses. Then you go on to state that it would overwhelm Federal law enforcement to the point that they would have to neglect other cases. Which is it?
|5.12.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Wouldn't the abuse thrown at Miss California be a sexual-orientation-based hate crime? There was certainly damage done, and it certainly was done by pure hatred.
|5.12.09 @ 7:01PM|#
"I think the idea is that a crime motivated by bigotry against a
minority is to some degree more reprehensible than the same crime
perpetrated against a person randomly."
And....bigotry against a majority?
|5.12.09 @ 7:04PM|#
The only sure way to cut down on gay bashings is dead bashers. Let a few of these assholes end up on the 11 o'clock news with their bigoted heads blown off, and you better believe would-be bashers will start thinking twice. An armed society is a polite society.
|5.12.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Alan, calling a stupid bigoted cunt a stupid bigoted cunt isn't
a crime of any sort.
Yet, anyway.
|5.12.09 @ 7:09PM|#
So I guess the Pennsylvania preachers who were arrested and
criminally charged with hate crimes for the content of their
preaching don't count, because a judge threw out the charges?
http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/HC5_Pa_Hate_Crime_Charges_Dropped.pdf
You don't need a conviction to disrupt someone's life or deprive
him of liberty or property.
Nick
|5.12.09 @ 9:14PM|#
"An armed society is a polite society".
Oh yeah! They're really polite to each other in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Gaza............
Quelle crock.
|5.12.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Thugs with guns tyrannizing those without guns is not an armed society. Grow up.
libertymad|5.12.09 @ 11:08PM|#
In fact, that kind of legislation may encourage hate crimes, as happened in the European countries where similar laws were passed over the last few years. For example, someone who justifies killing gays and desobedient women in the name of his culture and religion is fine. Those who criticise him can be prosecuted for hatred and racism. It's happening all over Europe, as Bruce Bawer points out in his next book, Surrender, out in a few days. A must read.
|5.12.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Folks here might find this Onion-style parody of the hate crimes
concept amusing:
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/perpetrators-of-viscious-hateful.html
higekiri|5.13.09 @ 3:19PM|#
This would be the same Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed from the federal bench due to corruption? This is one more example of why Congress (and more particularly the Democratic Party) is increasingly the face of what is wrong with this country. Since when do we have criminals- and Hasting, along with Louisiana's William Jefferson, Florida's Tim Mahoney, Pennsylvania's John Murtha, Connecticut's Chris Dodd and a myriad of others definitely qualifies - passing judgment on 'hate crimes' which are not only already covered under existing legislation but are needless in the first place? Instapundit.com's Glenn Reynolds has it right- it's yet another lawless power grab by the federal government. Hope and Change indeed!
Tina Trent|5.14.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Precisely the same may be said of hate crime laws in the states. States already prosecute crimes -- these laws are mere politicking, and power-and-resources accrual by activist groups with agendas to hone. There is a tremendous amount of money being made by groups that "train" police and prosecutors to "recognize" these crimes, and in every state, activists count down to each possible "hate incident" in order to publicize it. It's a corrupt and tragic system -- and Eric Holder is largely responsible for the way it became so in the 1990's.
|5.16.09 @ 7:27PM|#
You still don't get it. Hate crime laws aren't really about hate
at all. They're about stopping terrorism.
Today's gay-beaters are like the Ku Klux Klan: by "making examples"
of the people they disagree with, they hope to force gays (and the
other hate targets) to move out of "their" parts of the US.
And if such attacks are only punished as ordinary assault -- with
no enhancement for this intention to bully -- then they
succeed.
I'll gladly give up hate-crime laws when the law starts being
willing to let juries make (and punish) reasonable inferences about
intent-to-bully. Until then, we need hate-crime laws to be
safe.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Steve Chapman
- Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism, Steve Chapman, November 19, 2009
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
- Muslims and Mass Murder, Steve Chapman, November 12, 2009
Related Articles (Civil Rights, Gay/Lesbian Issues, Criminal Justice)
- How to Get Ahead in Law, Radley Balko, November 20, 2009
- "It Opened Our Eyes", Radley Balko, November 16, 2009
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
- Absolute Immunity on Trial, Radley Balko, November 9, 2009
- Death of a Watchdog, Radley Balko, November 2, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245