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
Federal Hate Crime Law Looks Inevitable
Last week the Senate approved the Matthew Shepard Act, which dramatically expands the "hate crimes" covered by federal law, as an amendment to a must-pass military spending measure. Since the House already has passed a stand-alone version of the act, which President Obama strongly supports, it is expected to become law by the end of the year. Yesterday I discussed that prospect on The Bob Zadek Show, which airs on San Francisco's KNEW. The major themes of the hour-long show: The hate crime bill exceeds the federal government's constitutional powers, allows retrial of defendants acquitted in state court, violates the principle of equal protection by giving special treatment to crime victims if they belong to certain groups, and punishes people for their speech and beliefs by enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry.
Regarding that last problem, the House version of the bill includes a provision, demanded by the American Civil Liberties Union as a condition of its endorsement, that says "evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense." I'm not sure how much impact that provision would have in practice. Wouldn't evidence of a defendant's opinions about homosexuality, for example, be deemed "specifically related" to his motivation in beating a gay man? In any case, the Senate version of the bill instead says that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs" (emphasis added). Since any prosecution under the law hinges on the commission of a violent crime, that provision does nothing to prevent the introduction of constitutionally protected speech as evidence to support a conviction. It will be interesting to see whether the ACLU, which has long been divided on the issue of hate crime legislation, withdraws its support for the bill if the final version includes this meaningless reassurance instead of the provision the organization favors.
The House version of the Matthew Shepard Act is here; the Senate version is here. A recording of yesterday's radio show is available here. Previous Reason coverage of hate crime laws, including my 1992 feature story and my last column on the subject, here.
bubba|7.27.09 @ 3:07PM|#
I wonder if it will be easier to get a conviction of a hate
crime than a what, "non-hate" crime?
Would weirdo publications and associations normally be allowed in
an assualt trial? Will some of those now be admissable because they
are relevant to a "hate" crime?
Rich|7.27.09 @ 3:14PM|#
How long until "congressperson" or "official" is added to the
victim categories?
This is bad.
Mad Max|7.27.09 @ 3:20PM|#
'The hate crime bill exceeds the federal government's
constitutional powers, allows retrial of defendants acquitted in
state court, violates the principle of equal protection by giving
special treatment to crime victims if they belong to certain
groups, and punishes people for their speech and beliefs by
enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry.'
In other words, blah, blah, blah, you're a racist and you dare to
oppose Obama's healing ministrations to cure this racist
country.
Mad Max|7.27.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Why are the police paying so much attention to the *non*-hate crimes, where people rob, burglarize, kill, etc. without racist or heteronormative motive?
|7.27.09 @ 3:29PM|#
I'd personally rather Congress pacify gays with something that doesn't border on punishing people for speech, but if this type of law has to exist it only makes sense to extend protection to gays.
|7.27.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Obligatory Monty Python "Prejudice" sketch
Obligatory Monty Python "Never be rude to an arab" sketch
|7.27.09 @ 3:46PM|#
While I disavow the whole notion of hate crimes as a necessary
and separate class, if you accept that there is such a thing, then
why would there be any "special" protection of speech if it were
evidentiary?
If someone is overheard to say "I can't stand fags and I wish they
were all dead" how is that not evidence of motive if charged in the
murder of a gay?
|7.27.09 @ 3:52PM|#
No one could be worse than Bush or Bush-lite McCain!
And don't even get me started on Palin. She is so
inexperienced!
This law will make us so much more like Canadians...and that is a
good thing because Canadians have universal health care, as do the
Cubans.
qwerty|7.27.09 @ 3:52PM|#
It will be interesting to see whether the ACLU, which has
long been divided on the issue of hate crime legislation, withdraws
its support for the bill if the final version includes this
meaningless reassurance instead of the provision the organization
favors.
I'm betting no. The ACLU has more liberals than libertarians.
T|7.27.09 @ 4:01PM|#
The ACLU has libertarians?!?
One. They keep it locked in cage in the basement, fed on tofu
scraps and empty promises. They occasionally consult it about
things, but they usually ignore it since donors would get pissed if
this were known.
|7.27.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Grrrr! Fucking stupid ass law. Last I checked assault,
manslaughter and murder were all illegal in all 50 states.
If you beat me because I'm an atheist or because I'm a smartass
doesn't really make much of a difference in the amount of pain I
feel or the costs of treatment, does it?
That it is named after a victim who may or may not have been a
victim solely because of his sexual orientation impresses me not
one fucking iota.
All laws named after victims are guaranteed to be poor
legislation.
jtuf|7.27.09 @ 4:02PM|#
To summarize:
Strapping eletrodes to your neighbor's head and sending 300 volts
through his skull to "cure him of mental illness" - legal
Strapping electrodes to your neighbor's head and sending 300 volts
through his skull because you think it's fun - illegal
Strapping electrodes to your neighbor's head and sending 300 volts
through his skull because you hated him ever since he painted his
house pink - illegal
Strapping electrodes to your neighbor's head and sending 300 volts
through his skull because you concluded that he was gay when he
painted his house pink - double illegal
|7.27.09 @ 4:03PM|#
How long until "congressperson" or "official" is added to
the victim categories?
See cop. What caste are you a member of?
Xeones|7.27.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Good one, Citizen Nothing! Next you'll try and tell me that Obama is black.
|7.27.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Love Crimes: The Collected Works of SugarFree
Is that going to be the working Title? Perfect.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 4:35PM|#
Damn straight, X. I'm the NRA/ACLU.
I don't think I would admit to either of those.
The ACLU track record pretty dismal and, well I just won't discuss
the NRA in polite company.
|7.27.09 @ 4:36PM|#
It must be said that there is a precedent for hate crimes
penalties - it's like the difference between first-degree murder
and manslaughter. That's making a different penalty over issues of
intent.
However, I still don't support this law.
|7.27.09 @ 4:51PM|#
If you want to see hate speech exemplified, listen to any
liberals, especially homosexual liberals or feminist pro choice
liberals talking about conservatives.
They don't deal with the idea or discussion, they attack the person
with vicious ad hominem attacks.
|7.27.09 @ 4:56PM|#
We need the Matthew Shepard Act!!!
Matthew Shepard's murderers got off with only two consecutive life
sentences apiece!!!
Justice failed for Matthew Shepard. How can we discourage the
senseless beating deaths of members of protected groups if the
bigots know that the only consequence that states like Wyoming will
exact will be to lock them in cages forever!!!
Clearly federal legislation is needed!!!
Zeb|7.27.09 @ 5:02PM|#
It seems to me that the motivation could reasonably be considered as a factor in sentencing without requiring a whole separate crime to be invented.
|7.27.09 @ 5:07PM|#
It seems to me that the motivation could reasonably be
considered as a factor in sentencing without requiring a whole
separate crime to be invented.
Well duh. But then what would they put in their campaign ads?
hmm|7.27.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Correct me if I'm wrong, but current hate crime statutes are
already solely used in sentencing and the new federal legislation
adds something to that involving the actual finding of guilt.
HALP LAWYERLY PERSONS. There's a tard in need.
Alex|7.27.09 @ 5:28PM|#
It must be said that there is a precedent for hate crimes
penalties - it's like the difference between first-degree murder
and manslaughter. That's making a different penalty over issues of
intent.
Yes, but intent is wholly different from motive.
|7.27.09 @ 5:49PM|#
Murderers should be charged with a hate crime or they should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. It's crazy to kill somebody if you don't hate them. I never do that.
BeesinTheBrain|7.27.09 @ 5:50PM|#
If we set aside the debate on how this affects freedom of speech, the 14th amendment or fits with the Supreme Courts motto of "equal justice under the law" and just focus on what should be the core purpose of laws and punishments, either as deterrents or as as punitive actions, then for me, having Matthew Shepard's name associated with the act, seems to prove that additional laws and punishments for "hate crimes" are either not needed or will be ineffective. The assailants in the Shepard's case were facing the death penalty because of their actions and ended up receive sentences of life in prison. But somehow, to some people, this means that the current systems is broken and that adding the threat of an additional 4 years in prison would have stopped it from happening. I'm not really certain how the ACLU came to that conclusion but given their support for the act and their willingness to throw out Mr. Shepard's name and to trot out other cases where the criminals got life in prison it does seem that they believe those four years hold some sort of mystical murder stopping powers.
</|7.27.09 @ 6:03PM|#
This law needs to be chained to a truck and dragged then it's tattered remains hung on a fence.
*|7.27.09 @ 6:10PM|#
It's crazy to kill somebody if you don't hate
them.
Not if you're just after someone's life insurance or someone's wife
(or, of course, both).
Rhywun|7.27.09 @ 7:01PM|#
What is the ultimate goal of this thing? To make everyone think good thoughts? Seems sinister to me, if not outright counterproductive.
|7.27.09 @ 8:58PM|#
Has anyone else noticed the irony of putting an "anti-gay bashing" law into a military budget?
Michael Ejercito|7.28.09 @ 12:39AM|#
Have any of you heard of Elizabeth Shoaf ?
She was a fourteen-year-old girl who had been kidnapped, held in an
underground hole, and repeatedly raped because she was a
virgin .
Should virgins be protected under hate crimes statutes?
please|7.28.09 @ 2:13AM|#
Mr Wilder? Whereas you and your pals criticize us for what we do
in the privacy of our own homes and in regards to our own bodies,
and then blame us for getting upset, we don't have any problem with
you living your life the way you do, whether it be in regards to
your sexuality, your religion, your family, WHATEVER.
The only thing that pisses "us" (and keep in mind, labeling a whole
group of people as "liberals" or, so nicely put, "homosexual
liberals," is pretty unstable - "we" are quite diverse in our
opinions) off about "YOU" is that you attack the very things which
make us happy - the freedom to love whom we want. You may not
approve of the sex we have or the relationships we forge, but do
these things have ANY bearing on your life? Does it threaten anyone
else's relationship? Does it do harm to anyone? No, it
doesn't...
Seeking to stop basic efforts that will ensure protection for
groups of human beings who are still at higher risk for
discouraging, violent, and often deadly assault is just a waste of
time, and so counterproductive. Why don't you instead stick to
fighting "us" on economic issues, which DO affect everyone?
Say all you want about us fags and how we should all be damned -
just keep it to yourself. You really would want to see a young
person who is just learning about their sexuality to hear this and
kill themself because they think they're an abomination? It happens
A LOT. I know a few people whose family members were in such a
situation.
In return, we will keep OUR moths shuts in front of you about the
morals and values and ideas you may be teaching your kids.
****
Thank you to Billy and Mad Max. I am with you.
|7.28.09 @ 8:02AM|#
Please, I think you're an abomination. Not because you're a gay liberal but because your tangent had nothing to do with anything posted here.
Art-P.O.G.|7.28.09 @ 8:35AM|#
Fair enough, Ted, but he's an abomination because:
Thank you to Billy and Mad Max. I am with you.
...his sarcasm detector was broken if it ever actually
functioned.
I personally have to agree with the proncipled libertarian position
against hate crime laws.
Art-P.O.G.|7.28.09 @ 8:38AM|#
I'm impressed with Tony. Even though he refuses to ever go full libertard, he at least won't tow the Democratic lion on this legislation.
lunchstealer|7.28.09 @ 12:56PM|#
You know, I would almost be placated if I really thought the
rules of evidence would be strict in determing whether "the
evidence specifically relates to that offense". For instance for
the case of carjacking a defendant's statement, "I hate white
people" would not be admissible because it's too vague, unless he
defendant said it during the crime itself. But "I hate white people
and I'm going to steal their cars" might be admissible.
Unfortunately, I have no such faith in Federal prosecutors or
judges. If for whatever reason they decide to try a case, they'll
use whatever they can shoehorn in no matter how unrelated it is.
I'm sure some genuine bigots will be prosecuted under this law, but
I'm equally sure that those cases would already have gotten the
maximum penalty already (the perpetrators in the namesake Shepard
murder are not likely to see the light of day ever again*). The
only people this will catch that wouldn't have been prosecuted
already are going to be poor saps who made the mistake of getting
acquited of a crime and incidentally making
racist/sexist/homophobic remarks.
* good thing, by the way. They deserved what they got. But the
point is that they got it without this law on the books, so what is
the need for it?
jack ellis|7.28.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Yeah, this Fed Hate Crime bill is nasty - straight out of
Orwell.
All Americans are supposed to be equal, but some Americans are
apparently more equal than others.
Wyoming the supposedly horrible, violent, backward place where the
Matthew Shepard crime took places rank 47 out of 50 states in
murder totals hate all of 14 murders in the whole state in
2005.
I live in Chicago (rated the least free City by Reason magazine -
over taxed, over regulated, strict gun control laws, not that the
criminals care) - we led the nation last year with over 500
murders, but I guess I should feel better knowing that few or any
of these murders qualify as "hate Crimes" - politically incorrect
oppressor group targeting official PC victim group member because
of bias against gays, Muslims, the disabled and Latinos (Muslims
and gays? those are strange PC victim bedfellows).
Check out our video on all this PC BS:
http://blip.tv/file/2350021
It is a shame that only a very small group of activists fought hard
to beat this Hate Crime Bill. Libertarians did a poor job of
fighting it (as usual).
Jack Ellis
www.bikers4freedom.com
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