New at Reason

May 9, 2007

Jacob Sullum burns the new version of the hate crime bill in effigy.

Comments

|5.9.07 @ 7:33AM|#

I fully agree with every reason Mr. Sullum lists to oppose the new hate crime legislation (and, indeed, all such legislation extant).

There is one other reason, wholly pragmatic, as well: it creates "martyrs to the cause," and actually is more likely to PROMOTE more such actions than to discourage them. As my father used to say, "nail them for it, nail them to it."

ed|5.9.07 @ 8:17AM|#

A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians.

There are all kinds of absurd scenarios that a judge would have to contemplate: a black man walks into a white church, shouts "I love you guys!" and and hoses the joint with an AK-47. Hate crime? A black man walks into a black church, shouts "I hate you niggers!" and hoses the joint. Hate crime?

Hate crime legislation is legislation against thought itself and has no place in our nation.

|5.9.07 @ 8:39AM|#

Suprapunishment for crimes committed due to specific bias is hard to justify, however, I think there is a breakpoint where the thought does count. Otherwise, what was all that fuss at Nuremburg about? Crimes against humanity are usually hate crimes writ large.

In any case, this law is not needed in the US.

|5.9.07 @ 8:57AM|#

Why does Jacob hate teh gheys?

|5.9.07 @ 9:25AM|#

Great article. The vast majority of 'hate crimes' are simple verbal harrassment (you can check the stats on the FBI page www.fbi.gov). I think there is a speech issue here for sure.

|5.9.07 @ 9:28AM|#

Agreed. The 'hate crime' concept is misguided to begin with. It's enforcement can only be arbitrary and capricious. Whatever pretext it is enacted under, it can function only as a tool of corruption.

|5.9.07 @ 10:23AM|#

But hate crime laws are one of those things with wonderfully circular logic. If you don't support hate crime legislation, you are guilty of a hate crime.

Hater Q. Public|5.9.07 @ 10:55AM|#

I hate Nancy Pelosi.
Come and get me, Feds.

Ryo|5.9.07 @ 11:08AM|#

The hate crime bill, which authorizes federal prosecution whenever the Justice Department perceives a bigoted motive and believes the perpetrator has not been punished severely enough

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe that explains why I can't figure out how this bill allows the federal government to step in when they feel local governments haven't done their job. Everything I read in the bill suggests the federal government can only act at the request of local governments. What am I missing?

|5.9.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Jacob, I agree with your concern about the double jeopardy angle to this but disagree with you otherwise. When a hate crime is committed there are two victims: the individual who has been harmed, and the larger community to which he/she belongs due to the message of intimidation sent out by the crime. Our Anglo Saxon system of jurisprudence was developed in the context of a relatively homogenous society which wouldn't have experienced nor been concerned with hate crimes.

|5.9.07 @ 11:30AM|#

Bill, surely the community could be said to be a victim in the case of any crime? Isn't that the very reason that criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the people of the state in which the crime was committed? And our Ango-Saxon system of jurisprudence has roots in a time (in England) of extreme divisiveness - Norman vs. Saxon. Henry II (AKA Henry the Lawgiver) instituted the trial by a jury of 12 of ones peers.

|5.9.07 @ 11:42AM|#

They hate hatred......hmmmm. What if I killed someone because I just didn't like them? What if they mildly irritated me? What if I was displeased by them? What if I found their online posts sophomoric?

|5.9.07 @ 12:34PM|#

I don't particularly agree with or believe in "hate crime" legislation.

That being said, if "hate crimes" laws are in fact on the books, why shouldn't gays be be given protected status in the same manner as ethnicities or religions etc?

|5.9.07 @ 12:40PM|#

What about obnoxious people? Certainly, many of them get killed each year because of their rude remarks. Isn't that a hate crime?

There's a HUGE Equal Protection problem with these hate crime laws, which generally only recognize "hate" as it ties into identity politics. Someone killing a black person because the killer is a racist scumbag gets more time that someone who kills a little kid because the killer is a sick fuck. Pardon?

Even without that, the punishment should fit what was done, and should leave out the opinions and beliefs of the accused, except to the extent that they are relevant to proving the requisite intent to commit the crime.

Ron|5.9.07 @ 1:03PM|#

This is all a huge smoke screen, just more smoke and mirrors from the ill informed Fox Noise Viewers, this bill has nothing to do with, what you are talking about, READ the Damn Bill
Wack-0ohhhs

Ron|5.9.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R 1592.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592

|5.9.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Given that all hate crimes are already illegal under state law (though usually laws against murder, assault, rape, arson, etc., rather than against "hate crimes" per se), is there *any* other reason for this federal legislation other than an end run around the prohibition on double jeopardy.

|5.9.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Uh, there should have been a question mark at the end of that last post of mine.

LarryA|5.9.07 @ 1:21PM|#

That being said, if "hate crimes" laws are in fact on the books, why shouldn't gays be given protected status in the same manner as ethnicities or religions etc?

And why shouldn't (for instance) gun owners have the same "equal protection under the law?"

My biggest problem with "hate crime" legislation is that it limits the protected classes. If I hit someone who is a member of a protected class because I hate that particular class, it's a "hate crime." If someone hits me because he hates gun owners (or people from Texas, or hunters, or published authors, or people who drive SUVs, or whatever) that's not a "hate crime" because that particular class of people isn't included in "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."

PS: Well, okay. Being from Texas would be included under "national origin."

|5.9.07 @ 5:56PM|#

Ryo, see Section 249(b), laying out various circumstances in which federal prosecution is allowed. They include a Justice Department determination that "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

|5.9.07 @ 7:02PM|#

Perhaps the hate crime distinction is that Local police are notorious for NOT prosecuting crimes that are based on hate, from the bad ole days when police were often participants in lynchings, to today when the views expressed here find their way to the police station and get scant attention.

That is why there is a need for the bill, to allow justice ignored to become actual justice.
It would be too political to charge the local police with the hate crime for dragging their feet in investigation, but that is the real problem with the hate crime.

|5.9.07 @ 9:20PM|#

What about sentencing (as opposed to charging someone with an additional crime)?

As I understand it, the sentencing guidelines were changed in the late 1990s to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

DADvocate|5.9.07 @ 11:19PM|#

Freedom - Did you actually read the article, re: "Unlike the situation in the Jim Crow South, there is no evidence that state and local officials are ignoring bias-motivated crimes."

Why is it that every time someone like Pelosi "cares" about us we get another step closer to a police state?

|5.9.07 @ 11:36PM|#

Hate crimes promote implicitly the idea that attacking someone for their iPod is "more acceptable" than attacking someone for their ethnicity. From this, the implicit conclusion is that the victim of the iPod attack has less right to justice than the victim of the "hate crime". Which is, of course, an absurd idea. The laws don't have any rational basis whatsoever. And as is obvious, any system of morality that is not grounded in solid reason, by its very nature enables and encourages the writing of "moral blank checks". For proof, consider history.

As for the argument that "hate crimes" should be punished more severely because they affect "everyone else in that group" too - a fascinating theory, if you have the brains of a rock. Every time an innocent person gets attacked, for whatever reason at all, it affects the whole community. Muggings create fear in everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to treat crimes differently based on thought. Because once you go down that road, it begs the question "why are some groups protected and not others"? What about people who get hit because they wear glasses? What about a subway musician who gets attacked because his playing annoyed someone? What about people who get attacked just because someone doesn't like their face? It happens.

Selecting only certain groups for "protected status" stinks of injustice, and merely proves the idea that mixed economies invariably become a war of pressure groups, each battling each other for a share of the same resources, political and legislative attention and ultimately taxpayers money. It's backward, barbaric, absurd and ludicrous. If I ever get attacked because of my race, I shall request that the case is not prosecuted as a hate crime, if that's even possible.

Zoe Brain|5.10.07 @ 1:22AM|#

The new law is unconstitutional.

But had it not been, are "hate crime" laws useful?

I think they are, because as has already been said, two crimes are committed: one against the individual, another, an act of Terrorism against the class.

The trouble is, how do you decide whether something is a "hate crime"? If, say, some nutter murdered a person with red hair because he hates redheads, that is not a hatecrime.

Why? Because, in general redheaded people do not go about fearful of their lives because of their redheadedness. There's no preaching from fringe elements of mainstream political or religious groups that redheaded people should be exterminated or deported.

So we need two elements for a hate crime: a class that has a well-founded belief that they are specific targets of violence for simply being what they are, and an act designed to reinforce that belief and terrorise them.

I happen to be a member of a class that has 17 times the normal murder victim rate in the USA, and where the proportion of unsolved crimes is nearly double the average, it is suspected due to a lack of enthusiasm for investigating them. This unconstitutional law might have lowered the first figure, and certainly would have lowered the second, by ensuring that murders don't get ignored.

But, as I said, the Federal Government does not have the power under the constitution to make such a law. The best it can do is amend existing hatecrime law to cover those victims on federal government business, and even then, it's dodgy.

Disclaimer : IANAL, and I'm not even American. There are parts of the USA which I will not visit, as the local Law Enforcement agencies and rogue prosecutors there are the prime persecutors. Most of the US is quite safe though, we mustn't exaggerate the problem.

|5.10.07 @ 8:25AM|#

As a gay male, I take offense that I need some special government protection over and above Joe Blow next door. I would like to file a hate crime case against Nancy Pelosi for assaulting my intelligence and self-respect. And, since we're into legislating people's thoughts, I'd like to file another charge against Nancy Pelosi for being just plain stupid. I mean if the Feds are going to be the "Thought Police," let's at least weed out some of the morons in the U.S. government for plain stupid thoughts.

|5.10.07 @ 8:29AM|#

Zoe, you miss the point entirely. If someone got killed for having red hair, YES damn it it would scare everyone else with red hair in the neighborhood!

If people are preaching that a certain group should be persecuted, that is a separate issue and should NOT affect the sentence someone receives for a totally separate crime.

As for your paranoia about belonging to a group in which murders are not investigated due to a "lack of enthusiasm" - I'm sorry, but "it is suspected" is NOT an argument or any kind of proof. "It is also suspected" by some people that the government created AIDS. A lot of things are "suspected" by a wide range of people, some more credible and objective than others.

If your "class" (whatever that means) has a murder rate 17 times higher than average, that doesn't mean those murders are hate crimes, they may have a cultural reason, for example African Americans are 6 times as likely to be murdered than whites in America, but these murders aren't hate crimes, they're due to urban thug culture and the violence on the streets. No hate crime law will reduce them.

LarryA|5.10.07 @ 12:14PM|#

So we need two elements for a hate crime: a class that has a well-founded belief that they are specific targets of violence for simply being what they are, and an act designed to reinforce that belief and terrorise them.

What is the purpose of the Hate Crime law? Is it to discourage people from attacking other people because they are members of a group? If so, then redheads have as much right to that protection as GLBT, blacks, or any other group.

Under your definition it would seem that the purpose if the law is to reassure members of groups with "well-founded belief(s)" that their beliefs are taken seriously. That would leave out groups (like gunowners) where the government doesn't think their beliefs are "well-founded."

All of which is getting away from the deterrent purpose of the law.

A Hate Crime law (or any law) shouldn't be implemented because one group is more politically connected than another.

celtic-dragon|5.10.07 @ 12:23PM|#

William

It is a fact that some jurisdictions do not pursue cimes against GLBT people with the same eficacy as they would against a straight, white banker. Denying that is akin to denying that there are still people who have a visceral hatred of the GLBT community.
Even where prosecution occurs, there is no guarentee that the convicted criminal will get much of a sentence. One vicious murderer named William Palmer beat a transexual woman to death in Boston...and got two years in prison. Joel Robles butchered a Latina transexual woman in California just a couple of years ago, and got only four years. He stabbed her twenty times. In both cases, they succesfully swayed the process with a "gay panic" defense. Sort of like saying that the black man had to be lynched because he might have been looking at a white woman.

The GLBT community does not get equal protection under the law as long as "gay panic" and prosecutorial apathy contnue to let murderers go free. But hey, it's only a couple of fags getting beaten, decapitated and burned on gasoline soaked tires in Alabama...or those two tranny students who got machine gunned to death sitting in their car in Washington DC after getting scared because of death threats at school (look it up...). Screw 'em...

http://www.gpac.org/press/victims-state.html

|5.10.07 @ 1:28PM|#

It is a fact that some jurisdictions do not pursue cimes against GLBT people with the same eficacy as they would against a straight, white banker.

So then, of course, two wrongs must indeed make a right! In the case you cite, you go after the jurisdiction/authorities/prosecutors for failing to adequately investigate/prosecute the case, not enact some morally repugnant law that elevates one class of citizens over another. What is it in this country that we increasingly counter one travesty with another?

|5.10.07 @ 6:42PM|#

Celtic-dragon:

Please show me undeniable, peer-reviewed PROOF that crimes against GLBT's are not prosecuted as stringently as crimes against others. Simply citing a few cases on a GLBT website is not enough. Show me a comprehensive study encompassing the whole country, which properly and scientifically concludes that this group is discriminated against in the courts. Because I could equally show you cases of the killers of non-GLBT's being handed sentences that were wildly inappropriate, too. The comments from J.P. above neatly summarize the logical and ethical stupidity of using this argument to justify hate crime laws.

To be honest, I'm sick to death of the cult of victimhood which pervades our society. In fact, let's call this by its proper name: "tribalism". As soon as you have a political system which offers favors and benefits to those who whine the loudest, you divide the country into tribes, each fighting one another for political and legal attention. It's pathetic.

I live in the West Village in New York. The Christoper Street pier on the Hudson has become a meeting ground for young black gays and lesbians who say they are hounded in their own neighborhoods, so they come downtown where the people of the Village are more than tolerant - up to a point. Quickly, the area became a source of trouble for locals, being overrun with drug use, prostitution, drinking and general bad behavior. The noise every night is atrocious. There are fights, constant screaming and shouting, and on more than one occasion I've had to physically remove a used condom from my dog's mouth because they're having sex out in the open.

So naturally, the locals have reacted and called for more police presence and to end the bad behavior. Immediately, black groups and gay groups (especially black gay groups) are screaming accusations of "homophobia!" and "racism!" towards the good people who had the decency to welcome them with open arms to the neighborhood, and then reacted appropriately when these kids abused that hospitality and flung it back in their faces. Typical comments from the kids in the press: "They just don't like us because we're black".

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, this whole tribal victimhood business is just becoming a joke. It IS a joke. There is less sense talked about race/gender/religion/sexuality in this country than any other subject. It seems that when it comes to their "tribe", people throw all sense of objectivity and truth out of the window. THIS is what I object to, and what many many others object to too. Hate crime laws are part of this cult of irrationality. They must be abolished.

|5.11.07 @ 12:00PM|#

The rape reference is precisely backwards. Rape would not suddenly be elevated to the level of hate-crime because it is targeted at females.

Rape is ALREADY treated as a special case, different and more heinous than other assaults, because of the victims' "category", and for many other reasons. And this special treatment goes back centuries.

If anything, the history of how rape is treated under the law supports the creation of hate-crime laws.

|5.11.07 @ 7:31PM|#

"The president's complaint is not that such a broad definition of interstate commerce leaves nothing beyond the federal government's authority. It's that Congress neglected to include the all-purpose Commerce Clause boilerplate in one section of the bill."

I doubt the President, personally, has a problem with the bill. I mean, he obviously has no problem with unconstitutional laws, given his history of signing everything the Republican Congress passed.

That's what *really* bothers me about the veto. He did it to support the religious right, plain and simple. The bill probably IS unconstitutional and unnecessary, which is one reason I don't support it. But, let's be honest: it's unlikely that he votoed it for that reason.

"Contrary to the impression left by the Constitution, Congress evidently can do whatever it wants, as long as it says the magic words."

That does seem to be the case. Now, everything appears to be constitutional, if people want it to be. We are, as a country, fractured into interest groups that care about our *own* liberties.

The only REAL limit on law seems to be popular opinion. Should it be? I don't know, but that's the way it is.

Take same-sex marriage for example: if you go by common-law and tradition, then presumably, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and marriages in Massachusetts should be recognized throughout the country. Social conservatives know that, which is why they wanted a federal DOMA in the first place, and why they want a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

The next "gay rights" bill that will likely be passed is a non-discrimination bill against gays. I support this law, and I still think Bush might. Is it constitutional? Possibly. And if that isn't, then what are we left with? Back to the states? One by one, individual states are passing anti-discrimination laws; such laws now cover most of the U.S. population.

I'm from Illinois, where discrimination against gays is basically illegal. Now I live in Missouri, where it IS legal. Given my state's political climate, I doubt an anti-discrimination law could be passed. I'm for the law, but I still understand the constitutional arguments against it.

Our Supreme Court now leans toward activism (Scalia is the best example). That's not any better than liberal activism.

I say punish people for what they do, not for what their motivations are. Very often groups that have traditionally been discriminated against (gays, blacks, etc.) think that changing the law is the answer, but, ultimately, change happens from the bottom-up: changes happens by changing the views of your peers through persuasion, not by trying to silence people by force.

|5.11.07 @ 7:53PM|#

William: kudos for an elloquent post.

I think that the reason gay people (I can only speak for myself, and to some extent, gay males in general) tend by hyper-attentive (I use this word purposefully) to discrimination.

Growing up gay can be incredibly miserable--especially in middle-, high-school, and even college, when most gay males aren't out or completely sure of themselves. The environment you're in can be awful. Anti-gay comments, jokes, and often terrifying statements by peers (especially adolescent straight males) can make you feel completely isolated and alone. Often, when you're very young, your environment--your school, your friends and your family--can increase this isolation and the sense that if you "show" yourself as being gay in any way, you'll get your ass kicked.

I've heard the same logic over and over, and to be honest, I lived it. Because being gay is not something that is necessarily instanteously identifiable--such as being Black--people say things and do things that they would otherwise not say or do in your presence.

It IS changing--somewhat. And, as I said in my previous comment, it's a change that has to happen in society. No law can force people to be tolerant or considerent.

|5.12.07 @ 11:25AM|#

RL:

The existence (or history) of rape laws do NOT justify the formation of hate crime laws - the two kinds of crime are not the same. Rape laws are separate because it involves a particularly nasty and traumatic form of physical assault, one which leaves the victim feeling much more physically violated than an ordinary assault. Rape attacks are usually prolonged, involve a higher level of fear for the person involved (male or female) and carry a high risk of giving the victim a sexual disease, or an unwanted pregnancy. Females may be the largest victims of rape, but they are NOT the only victims, not at all. Men are victims of rape too. Rape laws are different because of the physical nature of the crime, not because it is "targeted at females".

|5.12.07 @ 3:53PM|#

LarryA wrote:

Well, okay. Being from Texas would be included under "national origin."

I had it categorized as "disability."

|5.13.07 @ 5:33PM|#

It has been argued that "hate crimes" are illegitimate as they punish "thought" rather than "acts." I disagree. It is no crime to hate gays, for example. Many Christians take genuine pride in hating gay people. But if a physical act occurs, why can't the law regard prejudice as an aggravating factor? Essentially that is what so-called "hate-crimes" do: the hate makes the crime worse, as it should be if one wishes to live in a civilized society.

|5.14.07 @ 12:51AM|#

God, Gays, and Guns. Everytime somebody mentions one of these, it gets the usual knee jerk reaction from Americans. Get a life!

|5.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#

"Perhaps the hate crime distinction is that Local police are notorious for NOT prosecuting crimes that are based on hate"

perhaps because local police don't make charging decisions. PROSECUTORS do.

|5.14.07 @ 1:49PM|#

I guess I don't understand the point that Mr. Sullum is making.

The criminal law has, for centuries, distingished between crimes committed with different sorts of intent. Planned and calculated murder is, for instance, regarded as more morally culpable and is punished more severely than murder arising out of sudden passion. Yet that distinction is subject to exactly the same criticisms that Mr. Sullum advances toward hate crimes - clearly we don't want people to go around indulging their passions through "random" murders, so, presumable, on his theory, we should punish "heat of passion" murder MORE SEVERELY than carefully planned and plotted murder. [Something obviously wrong with that argument.]

If the answer to the proposal to treat hate crimes differently than, say, purely economically motivated crimes, is simply "well, we haven't made such distinctions in the past," then I suppose the issue comes down to whether one is a legal conservative or a legal liberal/libertarian. As I recall, until recent centuries there were no legal systems that did not, for instance, distinguish between free citizens and slaves - is that, therefore, grounds for re-establishing or preserving that legal distinction? I think not.

Further, it is far from clear, in my estimation, that Mr. Sullum's argument, that hate crime legislation is an infringement upon free speech, makes any sense. Is, then, a statute criminalizing the plotting of an assassination or criminalizing the planning of other violence against public or private persons or property also an infringement on free speech if all that has been done is the formulation of the plan and the agreement of the plotters to undertake the plan?

Perhaps the problem lies in the term "hate." "Hate speech" doesn't typically mean just saying "I don't like them there _____ [fill in the blank]." It means, "I don't like them and [fill in the blank as to some private or public action] should be done to [e.g., abridge their rights, or "put them in their place," or expel them from the country, or confiscate their property, etc.]. That is, "hate speech" isn't criminalized, but a pattern of hatred is an aggrevating factor in sentencing for an ACT that is otherwise independently criminal.

There has been a long standing tradition in libertarian circles, in fact, to claim that law itself is subject to certain exterior standard based on the types of rationales or motivations that exist for the existence of certain laws. According to that point of view a case might be constructed for condemning hate legislation as well as hate crimes. But, perhaps, Mr. Sullum would like to argue that "we" "have a right" to legislate what ever we please?

|5.16.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Craig Bolton:

You're confusing "intent" with "motive".

|5.16.07 @ 10:00PM|#

ben tillman: No he's not. You are confused. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and homicide. Motive is nothing but one of the three classic points of evidence needed to prosecute a murder case.

I usually agree with Jacob's opinions, but I disagree with this article. Look up the DOJ's publication, A policymaker's guide to hate crimes. His premise seems to be that normal people should be more in fear of random violence than minorities. According to the research on p13, anywhere from 66 to 85% of hate violence is random. If you think about why hate violence occurs, it makes sense. Either the attacker intentionally chooses a specific target representing the hated group, or he chooses the nearest target when seized by emotion. In both cases, this selection is random because the target could have been replaced with anyone else from the group, and the attacker would have still carried out his crime. In a normal crime, were the victim removed, the attacker's anger would have defused. Also, once a normal victim is dispatched with, the attacker is satisfied that he has dealt out his twisted form of justice, and would not likely repeat the crime because there is no longer a target. Dispatching with a hate victim does nothing to satisfy an attacker, because the hated group still exists. He is far more likely to repeat the crime, simply because equivalent targets still exist.

It was asserted that federal laws are unnecessary because states already adequately and consistently protect hate violence victims. Consulting p28, you will find that the truth is quite the opposite. Gender expression is rarely protected in states. Two states protect no traditionally targeted groups at all!

The existing law being amended could be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has upheld state hate violence statutes against First Amendment challenges in the past. The document shows where the Court has made a distinction between striking down statutes that restricted freedom of expression, and upholding those that respect freedom of expression.

This amendment, in the last sentence and contrary to what the propaganda on the right insists, explicitly enumerates that people retain the freedom to hate as long as they do not commit a violent crime against another! It also does not criminalize "pushing" as the right has insisted, indeed it creates no new class of crime whatsoever, only modifying the sentencing guidelines for existing violent crime. Strangely, they don't seem to have a Constitutional problem with the existing law which protects against religious-motivated hate violence, I wonder why that is.

I have heard individuals assert that it is unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds. That is absurd. The victim is equally protected, the police aren't going to rush to his aid any sooner because of a sentencing guideline. It is the assailant who suffers the additional penalty when justice is carried out. Equal protection under the law does not apply to an assailant being "protected" from excessive sentencing, that would be the Eighth Amendment if it would apply. However, such a challenge would fail unless the sentence was unprecedented, which even under the guidelines, no violent crime would receive an unprecedented sentence.

Individuals from the cross-dresser out for a night on the town, to the transgendered, to the transsexual living a new stealth life, are killed on a regular basis following the truth being discovered. Visit http://www.gender.org/remember/ for a taste, and note the utter brutality of the methods used. They certainly remind me of the way the "good ol' boys" used to dispatch with "them uppity niggers"...

If it's an unconstitutional extension of federal power, oppose it on constitutional grounds, rather than on grounds that it is unnecessary. It is clearly necessary, because transsexual people are murdered at the rate of approximately one per month. Given their small population, that's where the 17 times the national murder rate figure comes from.

I don't believe there can be a long enough sentence for individuals who initiate acts of violence against random victims, whether as a symbolic act or not. They are ticking time bombs in any case, and I don't find them especially deserving of leniency.