Eleven years ago gay teen Matthew Shephard was beaten and left to die on a Wyoming fencepost. That was also the year three white men in a truck, in another sickening act of violence, pulled African American James Byrd behind them until he was dead. This past Wednesday, President Obama signed the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In a fairly common practice, it was passed as part of a totally unrelated spending bill.
As this Associated Press story notes, the federal law has now been expanded to included crimes against people committed because of gender, sexual orientation and disability. The story by Ben Feller, which also includes a lot of detail on the spending bill, contained this interesting paragraph:
At the urging of Republicans, the bill was changed before it was passed in Congress to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association.
Feller doesn’t give details, but he does note what has been at the core of objections to the law: that it will constrain clergy and others who make public statements about homosexuality. In other words, does the law infringe on First Amendment protections and religious liberty? How are reporters writing about material objections to the hate crimes bill?
The best story I found (though it had its own problems) was a local one from Wyoming. But other articles either didn’t mention religious and free speech objections at all (they don’t go away because you ignore them), gave them scant attention, or fit the story into a particular ideological framework. That being said, I’m not sure from the coverage whether many editors considered this a standalone story, given where it seemed to end up — in online blogs.
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times didn’t allude to objections in this brief “The Caucus” post — a straightup report on what happened without any outside opinions.
Here’s a sample of the second approach, from the USAToday.com website page “The Oval”:
Opponents called the hate-crimes bill unnecessary, noting that Shepard’s and Byrd’s attackers were convicted in state criminal courts. Some critics objected to the inclusion of hate-crimes legislation in a defense budget bill.
“The president has used his position as commander in chief to advance a radical social agenda, when he should have used it to advance legislation that would unequivocally support our troops,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Pence also argued that the law could be used to curb free speech rights, such as with religions that consider homosexuality a sin.
Yup, it is scandalous that Democrats and Republics tack totally unrelated amendments on to spending bills — and everytime it occurs, the other party is outraged, outraged, outraged. The bigger news here, however, are the constitutional issues, which get a scant sentence.
On the other hand, take this story from the Washington Times. There’s some good content here, but the author’s focus is on the “Obama gives gay rights activists what they want” pretty much to the exclusion of other threads.
Critics said that because the new law only adds harsher penalties for acts that are already illegal and subject to criminal prosecution, its main achievement is to move the nation toward the criminalization of politically incorrect speech.
“Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime,” said Erik Stanley, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group.
“All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice. This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel or believe,” Mr. Stanley said.
And that’s the objection of many conservatives and civil libertarians — that the law introduces a whole new class of what can be prosecuted in which the lines between permissible and impermissible speech aren’t clear.
By the way, if “minority classes” are being protected, then it’s the guys who ought to be happy. As far as I know, the census says that women are the American majority. None of the stories I saw really said anything about the other categories, like disability, now being federally protected — hmmm, I wonder why?
But how is this new law going to affect clergy and laypeople in the real world (grin) outside the Beltway? A story from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle offers us a practical point-of- view from a state which (unlike 45 others) doesn’t have hate-crimes laws.
Some Christians have expressed opposition to the bill because of a belief that it could criminalize pastors for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality: that it is a sin to be repented like any other sin.
Opponents feel it could turn preaching the Bible into “hate speech,” and some fear that pastors could be blamed for a hate crime committed by someone in their congregation.
“I would never speak in a manner that would encourage someone to harm someone who is a homosexual,” the Rev. John Christensen, pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Cheyenne, said. “Clearly, no one should engage in an act of violence against a person because of (his or her) sexual orientation.”Still, the bill steps dangerously close to the line, he added.
“I do have some concerns about it,” he said. “I see it as a backdoor to censoring speech.”
Is it only Christians who object to the new law? Last I heard, Nat Hentoff hadn’t converted (this article, with a clear bias, nonetheless has some amazing links).
Also, progressives would dispute Baylie Evan’s comment about Bible passages and homosexuality. Since Evans doesn’t say what kind of Lutheran pastor Christensen is (is this a Missouri Synod parish?) you have one Lutheran pastor disagreeing with another (but wait, he’s actually Presbyterian).
But though I don’t think the extended block quotes technique serves the story well, Evans gives both sides ample quotes to make their points. I found the extended passage from Charles Haynes, a scholar with the First Amendment Center, particularly useful.
It’s unfortunate that so few writers cared to go that deeply into the possible effects of a bill on Constitutional rights. Care to wager whether we’re going to see a federal court case on one of these issues sooner right than later? Keep watching this space.
Picture is of the late Matthew Shepard
 | Posted at 9:14 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (53) |
October 30, 2009, at 9:22 am
Anyone who has been reading widely in the msm would know that religious objections to the Hate Crime bill have been fully reported. What has not been fully reported is that the Hate Crimes bill also covers religion: i.e. there are enhanced penalties for people who commit crimes against people on the basis of their religion. Now that does not stop people from criticizing people on the basis of their religion. That happens all the time, including right here at GetReligion. Neither will the Hate Crime Act stop people from criticizine people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Maybe, however, it will stop some of the vicious beatings and murders that are all too common.
October 30, 2009, at 9:56 am
Mollie:
Shouldn’t reporters also note the difference between hate speech laws—which deal with free expression—and hate crime laws, which deal with action. Just looked at the text of law, and it deals with acts of violence and motivations—not speech.
Take Westboro Baptists. They can engage in hate speech all day long — send out faxes about how God hates America all day along, or protesting funerals with their “God hates F…” signs—and there’s no punishment for that speech.
However if a Westboro Baptist member look out a gun and shot a gay, and said he did it because God hates gay people—that’s a hate crime.
Nobody raises free speech objections when it comes to murder—even though laws makes a difference between first degree murder, a premediated act, and involuntary manslaughter, which premeditated. In the both cases, the result of the crime was the same — someone ended up dead. But the punishment is different, based on motivation.
October 30, 2009, at 10:08 am
“…the objection of many conservatives and civil libertarians … ” —> I have my own (long) list of “conservatives. Would you please share the list of the “many” civil libertarians to whom you refer?
October 30, 2009, at 10:09 am
BOB —
That’s a truly excellent point. It seems almost rude to point out that I’m not Mollie.
October 30, 2009, at 10:15 am
George Frink —
OK, I should have said many conservatives and prominent civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff, Wendy Kaminer, and Gail Heriot. You can be concerned with civil liberties regardless of ideology, which is why, of course, the ACLU has some strange bedfellows.
October 30, 2009, at 10:58 am
While the legislation is about actions, not speech, there are speech issues involved. If we aren’t vigilant about our liberties we will lose them. The civil liberatarians cited seem to fall into the category that the legislation involves “double jeopardy” for the defendent, rather than the first amendment—another good point.
It would not be unimaginable, for example, for a lawyer defending a “pro-life” killer to attempt to bring in “incitement” as a way of mitigating consequences to his client. Is calling someone a “baby-killer” incitement? Is quoting scripture against homosexuality the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater? Can you do either or both of these from your home but not from a place of worship?
October 30, 2009, at 11:01 am
Here is an “open letter” from several members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, opposing the bill:
http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments2009/Civil_Rights_Comm._Ltr-1.pdf
One of their main objections, which I haven’t seen brought up in any news reports, is that the wording of the bill may permit it to be applied in cases that the average person wouldn’t consider “hate crimes.”
The bill, as it is worded, does not require prosecutors to show that there was any malice by the accused toward a protected category, the letter says. It merely requires prosecutors to show that the victim was chosen because of his or her real or perceived membership in that protected category.
That distinction is crucial, the letter says.
“Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen ‘because of’ their gender,” the letter says. Also, “a robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they are chosen ‘because of’ their gender or disability.”
The letter goes on to say that “both the objective meaning of the language [of the bill] and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a ‘hate crime’ in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by [the bill], then prosecutors will have ‘two bites at the apple’ for a very large number of crimes.”
October 30, 2009, at 11:02 am
I wish somebody would do a comparison of the resulting enhanced sentencing of hate crime designation and allowing surviving family members to make impact statements. Seems to me when the killer of a suburban mother of four gets a tougher sentence than the killer of a prostitute (who has nobody to speak up for her)the results are similar to hate crime designations.
What happened to blind justice? The state is not acting on behalf of the victim; the crime is against the state and the peace of its citizens. At least that’s what we were taught in law school back in the day. …
October 30, 2009, at 11:07 am
My biggest problem with hate crimes legislation is the obvious subjectivity of it all. So yesterday a synagogue was attacked and two people, sadly, were shot. Immediately, police were counting this as a hate crime, according to the MSM. Now, there have been several cases of churches being shot up in recent years. How many of those have been designated hate crimes? And how long did it take to do it? I remember the fellow who shot up a church a couple years ago in Colorado, who had anti-religious and anti-Christian rants at his home, was only spoken of as being mentally ill. If it has since been designated a hate crime, it was a long time coming. So you say you hate Christians, think Christians must die, go into a Christian church and kill a bunch of Christians, and it may take months or years to conclude it was a hate crime - if that conclusion is reached at all. Meanwhile, go anonymously into a synagogue, an African American church, a gay bar, open fire (hopefully hitting no one), and before the investigators arrive, the crime will be designated a hate crime. That, if for no other reason, is why the whole thought of hate crimes gives me the shakes. And I would love - love - if the MSM did a counting of such crimes and report on which ones were called hate crimes, which ones weren’t, and which ones turned out to be (in addition to how long it took to call each a hate crime).
October 30, 2009, at 11:19 am
Shaun G. should point out that the letter he cites is from a minority of members of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission, all Bush appointees. Indeed, they were appointed precisely because they are conservative activists who were intent on emasculating the civil rights commission, which they effectively did during the Bush Administration.
October 30, 2009, at 11:23 am
That’s three, two of whom I have carefully read.
You’re right. I see no reason to believe that the two groups who shared the concerns to which you allude are similar in size. Neither do you. Which is the point - not any presumptions about the ideology of civil libertarians.
October 30, 2009, at 11:59 am
The deaths of both Matthew Shepard and James Byrd are obviously tragic. I question however, what hate crimes legislation would do for either case.
The two individuals that murdered Mr. Shepard both received 2 consecutive life sentences.
Two of the three men that murdered Mr. Byrd received the death penalty. The other got life in prison.
What more could this sort of legislation have done? I’m not even visiting the slippery slope that is punishing thought crime.
October 30, 2009, at 12:04 pm
Elizabeth:
Mea culpa, mea culpa. That’s what I get for commenting before drinking coffee. Excellent post—thanks for brining this up.
October 30, 2009, at 12:17 pm
When thinking about stories in this area it’s critical to put them in the larger context which includes the push by Islamic countries to outlaw defamation of religion speech such as this one now getting a bit of media attention: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603218.html
October 30, 2009, at 12:22 pm
A point of fact: Does anyone know the differences between the CANADIAN law on this and the U.S., since speech issues have come up in Canada. That is the source of many of the fears among religious grous.
October 30, 2009, at 12:22 pm
What Jerry said.
October 30, 2009, at 12:24 pm
While it’s important for journalists to put these laws in context, as Jerry says, that context needs to be clear. There is a difference between hate crimes and hate speech laws. A push by Islamic countries to outlaw defamation may have very little to do with hate crime laws when perpetrated against religious people, for instance, or against gays and lesbians.
Journalists need to step back and not allow themselves to be sucked into either side’s arguments, which means being skeptical of hate crime bills but also the rhetoric of “religious liberty under threat.”
October 30, 2009, at 1:04 pm
Does anyone know the differences between the CANADIAN law on this and the U.S., since speech issues have come up in Canada. That is the source of many of the fears among religious grous.
A great story idea. The U.S. has had freedom of speech since the 1791 when the Bill of Rights was passed. Canada’s dates to 1982 with the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because Canada has a more expansive view of group rights and “rights and freedoms,” free expression comes with limits in Canada that have never been found under the First Amendment.
Canada’s free expression laws are a work in progress, which is why challenges occur in provincial human rights bodies that would never occur in the U.S. It’s very much an apples/oranges comparisons, in many ways.
October 30, 2009, at 1:15 pm
What has NOT been extensively covered is Canada’s experiences with its rather draconian thought-crime/hate-crime legislation, which has led to unelected quasi-judicial “Human Rights Commissions” randomly slapping fines or even threatening jail time on those who dare to speak “badly” about non-standard sexual practices, or any other *alleged* speech crimes - which can be very broadly construed.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/07/23/marriage-ruling.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020904.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/canada%E2%80%99s-human-rights-kangaroo-court/
October 30, 2009, at 1:40 pm
Thanks for the links, Stephen A.
This is a wonderful thread. I just deleted a comment that would have dragged us into the mud. And I will delete anymore that are insulting.
October 30, 2009, at 1:45 pm
But, Padraic #12, the two people who crushed Luis Ramirez’s skull while shouting ethnic slurs and threatening the same treatment for all Mexicans in Shenandoah, Pa. received less than two years for their crime (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gov-rendell-asks-us-attorney-general-to-file-civil-rights-charges-in-pottsville-beating-death).
And the 18-year-old who “pleaded no contest to a fifth-degree felony of ethnic intimidation” after calling fellow teen Robert Cantu a “border jumper,” putting a noose around his neck, dragging him by it, and telling Cantu’s mother he was going to be hanged in the park, got 10 days in jail (http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/Plea_agreement_in_Noose_case/16723/).
Sentencing in hate-crime cases has been inconsistent, at best.
October 30, 2009, at 2:58 pm
E.E. Evans, you may think the links supplied by Stephen A. are wonderful. I don’t. Two of them come from the right-wing blogs, the other reports on the fact that a marriage commissioner who refused to marry a gay couple lost his job (as well he should have if he is not prepared to enforce the law). Conservatives don’t like hate speech laws. They don’t like hate crimes laws. No news there. However, many people think that the reason Canada has a more civil politics than the U.S. is precisely because free speech in Canada does not include hate speech.
October 30, 2009, at 3:02 pm
I was thinking of the Violence Against Women Act that didn’t hold up before SCOTUS (that was almost 10 years ago) b/c of interstate commerce factors. The crime wasn’t interstate, just as most murders, assaults are not interstate. So, “hate crimes” punishments could be unprosecutable from that regard, as Mike Pence hinted.
As for free speech, I think many of us might have visions of Jack McCoy (L&O) in our heads thinking of prosecutors who might try to stretch hate crimes, eg, to a clergy who preached on the sin of homosexuality and a parishioner kills a gay man.
As others have said hate crimes enhancements are so subjective and arbitrary. So, if I hate my mother in law and killer her, that’s not a hate crime. If the loud music some teens play annoys an older neighbor, and he looses it and assaults or kills the kid, that’s not a hate crime. But, I bet it would be if the music were rap or Latino beat, the kid were not of European extraction, and the old neighbor was a white man. If the old guy hates rock music, he’ll be punished according to normal law; if he hates rap or Latino, then he’s in deeper doo-doo. The law is supposed to be blind, as another reader said.
October 30, 2009, at 3:21 pm
John Christensen? He still owes me money! Just kidding. I know John, & he is a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor.
Regards this law, the problem with laws like these is that they are almost invariably astonishingly vague. So, today the politicians may claim that this law would never be used to punish or intimidate those who engage in certain acts of speech, but tomorrow they’ll be using it in exactly that way.
Just like the racketeering law was only going to be used against mobsters but then was used against pro-life demonstrators. Just like asset forfeiture laws were only going to be used against drug lords but then were used indiscriminately to seize assets from a wide variety of people who were only accused of a crime.
Plus, the enforcement of these laws is also open to the interpretation and discrimination of the prosecutors. So, depending on who’s in power, certain offenses may be prosecuted in very different ways, as comments #9 & 22 point out.
October 30, 2009, at 3:33 pm
“So, today the politicians may claim that this law would never be used to punish or intimidate those who engage in certain acts of speech, but tomorrow they’ll be using it in exactly that way.”
Hate crimes laws have been on the books since the mid 1960s without experiencing any of the parade of horribles being suggested. The addition of sexual orientation and gender identity come with clear exemptions for religious speech and the final bill appears to include the exceptions the ACLU requested.
“the enforcement of these laws is also open to the interpretation and discrimination of the prosecutors. So, depending on who’s in power, certain offenses may be prosecuted in very different ways,”
Which is the same for pretty much every law on the books.
October 30, 2009, at 3:48 pm
Sure, it’s the case for pretty much every law on the books. The problem then becomes the proliferation of laws upon laws and the resulting vagueness of them. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether or not there are clear exemptions, the law becomes whatever a prosecutor can get approved by a court, whether a jury or a judge. Which is why all these cases end up going to the Supreme Court and who knows what you’ll get from their decisions.
The problem with hate crimes laws really comes down to prosecuting crimes based on what a person’s motivations might have been while they were committing it. Assault and murder should be punished no matter what a person was thinking while doing it or even shouting while doing it.
October 30, 2009, at 3:49 pm
In my opinion, no law is perfect and justice is never completely blind — as laws are applied, and challenged, they create precedents that can make them more fair. If they aren’t fair, eventually these laws may be overturned.
From my perspective, a responsible journalist points out the potential issues, and then monitors the ways in which the laws are applied. Hopefully we’ll see coverage as this is tried in the courts.
October 30, 2009, at 4:06 pm
Sabrina-
Not all sentences seem fair. Sometimes there is not enough evidence to convict someone of the crime which they are guilty of, thus they are charged with a lesser crime for which there is enough evidence. Other times there are plea bargains. Sometimes prosecutors do not charge individuals with every offense, other times they throw every charge they can at them. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Every crime is a unique set of circumstances.
My point was the assailants of the two men for whom the law is named for were either put in prison for life, or received the death penalty. Hate crimes laws would have done nothing for either of them. Again, I am not touching the criminalization of thought that is inherent in this legislation.
October 30, 2009, at 5:57 pm
One thing that the original article, the analysis here, and the comments get a bit sloppy on is the idea that hate crime laws are written specifically about minorities - they aren’t.
The laws don’t just address people who attack people for being gay; they address people who attack people because of their sexual orientation.
Straight people have a sexual orientation, white people have a race, Christians have a religion, men have a gender. That usually gets lost along the way.
Making sure that the laws get enforced equally is the challenge, and an important one.
October 30, 2009, at 6:04 pm
Here’s a coverage question:
The White House reception celebrating the passage of this bill was co-sponsored by gay rights philanthropist David Bohnett. President Obama even gave a shout-out to him in his remarks.
Back on Oct. 9, Bohnett accepted an award for GLSEN. His acceptance speech was prime evidence for religious conservatives concerned that “hate crimes” legislation and other gay legislative causes will target them.
Calling for “active measures” against religious opponents, he said:
Bohnett typifies the kind of influential activist conservative religious people are worried about. Given this, how relevant to the hate crimes story are his recent remarks and his presence at the reception? How newsworthy is Bohnett for a general audience?
October 30, 2009, at 8:16 pm
Passage of this law—like passage of all laws—did not happen in a vacuum. Passage of this law— like the push for legalized gay marriage—is far more about intimidating people into acceptance of homosexual sexual activity as healthy, normal, and moral than it is about prosecution and punishment of violent crimes. However, try to find anything in the media that examines the issue from this point of view.
October 30, 2009, at 11:33 pm
Kevin #30-
Thanks for making that connecting link. So, from this type of speech, it seems that if I “work against (us)GSLEN”, I should be ready to be shamed, humiliated, have finances choked off, and be condemned. Yes, I can see how it might appear that conservatives have something to worry about. Stories that touch on speeches like this are generally softened or summarized into making the speech less troublesome, thus those who are concerned seem to be over-reacting to the news.
October 31, 2009, at 2:19 am
I don’t think Bohnett knows what imprimatur means.
If Canada’s anti-defamation law prevailed in Europe in the 1500s, there would have been no Reformation.
October 31, 2009, at 5:14 pm
If it hasn’t already been asked, what is a “Love crime”? Is there an example of any crime whatever that doesn’t start with hating people, if only the one that just walked by and has a wallet? What a stupid way to make law. Is a person deader if they were killed in a random robbery or “Because” they were gay/straight/Catholic/Jewish?
October 31, 2009, at 5:43 pm
What is missing in the reporting is any sense of history. Laws of this type first arose to deal with lynchings in the South. Black people were set upon by mobs, tortured and then hanged. Trials at the state level, if any, always resulted in acquital. Wikipedia has a somewhat leftist history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching
Lynch laws, and their successor Hate Crimes Legislation, result from a failure of local authorities to enforce the law that protects certain groups from violence. This should have been included in the coverage.
October 31, 2009, at 7:54 pm
Jay (No. 10):
While that context certainly is valuable, I don’t think it necessarily discredits the argument — which is what your comment seems to be implying.
Are you saying the press should not be examining the implications of the “because of” wording simply because the letter was written by Bush appointees?
October 31, 2009, at 11:13 pm
Jay: I’m sorry you didn’t like that the examples (post 19 above) of this law’s abuse in Canada were from “Right Wing Blogs.” Sadly, that’s where people feel they have to be fighting back.
Here’s a link from the National Post (which I suppose is a ‘right wing blog’ too) in which a Christian pastor was procecuted by the province’s commission for disagreeing with gay sexual practices in a newspaper:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/11/ezra-levant-on-the-human-rights-show-trial-of-christian-pastor-stephen-boissoin.aspx
I only have an anecdote (no link yet) from an early 90s case in British Columbia in which a pastor was harassed, prosecuted and fined for similar comments by a very aggressive HC Commissioner.
November 1, 2009, at 1:08 am
Why didn’t Christians object to their own inclusion in Federal hate crimes laws passed in 1969 and 1994? Why is it that they only object to restrictions on free speech when gays are included?
November 1, 2009, at 1:19 am
Deacon Bresnehan, passage of this law is a direct result of the universal outcry over Matthew Shepard’s anti-gay lynching.
That story was the first anti-gay murder that got national attention.
November 1, 2009, at 2:50 am
So here comes the constitutional challenge to “hate crimes”: if we are all afforded “equal protection” under the law, does a surviving victim of a “non-hate” violent crime have standing to demand redress from the state for said state not imposing equal or equivalent punishment to his or her attacker?
November 1, 2009, at 7:06 am
Frank, I’ve edited your comment, since I have no clue about your citation. I think you can back up your assertion without using an anti-Christian screed.
November 1, 2009, at 7:10 am
As you know, I’m sure, “Christians” have varying opinions on the hate crimes laws — and for various reasons. As I noted in the original post, others have also expressed concerns.
November 1, 2009, at 7:16 am
Hi R.Porter,
If you read the text of the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, you’ll find an answer to the point you raised.
“Equal protection” applies to the same type of offense. But the text of the act says that (at least in the eyes of the legislators who voted for it and the president who signed it) a violent crime motivated by hatred of the victim because, say, he owes you money is UNEQUAL to a violent crime motivated by hatred of a person’s sexual orientation, race, etc.
In the former case, your act is an offense against the victim. In the latter case, your act is not only an offense against the victim, but also an act of intimidation against all members of the protected class. It’s sort of like two offenses in one: an assault and an act of terroristic threatening.
Granted, the same could arguably be said of many types of violent crimes that aren’t strictly “hate crimes.” A street gang might assault a rival gang member who ventures onto their turf not only as an offense against the victim, but as an act of intimidation against all members of the rival gang.
But if you’re simply looking for an explanation of why Congress sees non-hate crimes and hate crimes as unequal offenses, and thus not subject to “equal protection,” that’s the basic gist.
November 1, 2009, at 3:38 pm
The citation is “Lone Star Hate: On the Trail of Texas’s Brutal Gay Killings”—Vanity Fair, February 1995 by Buzz Bissinger.
In a trial for the murder of a gay couple in a park, a judge quoted Leviticus from the bench and said that the couple would still be alive if they hadn’t been cruising for boys. The two were slain while eating together in the park. The judge manufactured an excuse for the murder out of whole cloth and endorsed their murder with the Bible. If memory serves, the judge gave the defendants five years.
This was just one of 8 anti-gay murders occurring over an eighteen month period in Texas as documented in the citation. If you want to challenge this, go to a library. There is no link available.
November 1, 2009, at 3:41 pm
E Evans,
If you have any integrity, then why don’t you enforce documentation standards equally? Why can Christians like “Deacon” Bresnahan tell any anti-gay lie they want to but you demand documentation from the pro-gay side?
November 1, 2009, at 3:46 pm
I guess free speech is only for Christians, which was my point anyway. Thanks for helping me demonstrate it. After all the Federal hate crimes protections for Christians passed in 1969 and 1994 evoked no outcry of the endangerment of freedom of speech, in spite of religion’s history of restricting speech often on pain of death.
November 1, 2009, at 3:53 pm
Yanno what, Frank? I left your first comment up, your rhetorical questions equally unsourced. I’m still not sure why I did that, but I guess I felt it raised a debatable point.
I asked you for a citation for this comment BECAUSE you quoted a source, but didn’t give us enough information to recognize the source. In asking you for a source, I was actually giving you an opportunity to make your point.
If you notice, well-thought out ideas evoke response on here. Invective usually evokes…well, only more invective, and then we have to step in.
November 2, 2009, at 10:05 am
When I read these stories, with protests by anti-gay clergy who raise vauge concerns about being prosecuted for preaching, I always wish the reporter would come out and say bluntly:
Okay, tell me something that you preach (or that you’ve “heard” preached, if you’re worried about the repercussions) that you think would be prosecutable under this law.
As has been noted above, we’ve had federal hate crimes on the books for decades, and last I looked, plenty of folks continue to say vile, disgusting things about black people, without fear of prosecution. It’s only when they cross the line into inciting violence that the law steps in.
If clergy incite violence (against blacks, or gays or anyone else), they’re already breaking the law, with or without hate crimes extensions. The religious status of their statements doesn’t protect them.
Bringing up what they do in Canada, or Germany, or anywhere else is irrelevant; America has always had a different approach to free speech than other countries. And I’m not even going to go into basing our laws on what a fictional television prosecutor would do.
November 2, 2009, at 10:07 am
ugh — that’s “vague,” obviously. I need more coffee.
And dalea (No. 35), your point is the best one yet on this issue. Knowing the history of these laws is essential.
November 2, 2009, at 11:29 am
Suzanne,
Thank you for your response. While it does help me to understand the argument from the “other side” it does not convince me of the justness of the law itself.
If a husband murders his wife because she is having an affair, why is the taking of her life considered less of a crime than the man who kills his neighbor because he is gay? Is her death less of a loss to society than his? Is the husband’s motive less reprehensible than the neighbor’s?
It seems to enshrine in law the idea that certain “classes” of individuals are more important to society than others and that violent crimes against members of the “classes” are more grievous to the common good. It seems to build, IMO, more reasons to divide us than to unite us.
I think the more appropriate way to deal with crimes, not adequately prosecuted due to bigotry and prejudice, is to provide the opportunity to indict the true criminal in such cases, namely the prosecutor and/or police who have failed to adequately enforce the law. Rather than elevate one victim as someone who is more worthy of justice than another, shouldn’t we prosecute the true crime in these cases: the crime of the state in failing to adequately punish or prosecute the offender(s)?
November 2, 2009, at 1:30 pm
Well, Shaun G discussed this just a few entries up:
“In the latter case (a hate crime), your act is not only an offense against the victim, but also an act of intimidation against all members of the protected class. It’s sort of like two offenses in one: an assault and an act of terroristic threatening.”
If I burn a cross on my black neighbor’s lawn, it’s more than vandalism or misdemeanor arson, because I’m not just destroying property, I’m sending a message to this neighbor and to other black residents: You’re targeted. You could be next.
If a guy goes around targeting lesbian women to be raped, he’s likewise sending a message to all lesbian women.
If you kill your wife, it doesn’t necessarily hold that other wives should live in fear that you’re coming for them next.
November 2, 2009, at 5:52 pm
Shaun (#43),
My apologies, it was indeed you, not Suzanne who answered my question from above. So I wish to extend to you, as well, my previously misplaced gratitude for clearifying the “equal protection” argument.
Suzanne, I would still offer you my thanks, as well. You have also given me much to ponder.
November 2, 2009, at 6:11 pm
Shaun and Suzanne,
I am not necessarily opposed to hate crimes legislation. I can see the need to “do something” and “send a message”. I don’t have any concerns as it would apply to the principles of freedom speech or expression. Even the issue of double jeopardy does not greatly concern me, since I do see two crimes occurring that could be separately prosecuted.
Perhaps this is not the correct forum to further discuss the issue, but if you and the remainder of the erudite commentators on this blog are willing to entertain this discussion, I remain in the “undecided” category on this issue and would appreciate the opportunity to continue it. My main concerns revolve around the question of justice for the victim and justice for the community.
I concede that there are crimes that are intended to send a message and I am moved by the argument that we need to prosecute those crimes “above and beyond” the actual, specific crime. To make the discussion easier for me, would the following classifications be acceptable in order to differentiate violent crimes:
I like the term “ad hominem crime” to identify violent crimes focused against a very specific victim (as in the husband-wife situation above).
A “hate crime”, as you have described, would be a crime motivate by hatred of a group, of which the victim is a member.
I think there is a third crime an “ad hominis crime” a crime motivated by a complete lack of concern for the life of any/all human beings. Similar perhaps to a “crime against humanity” but the connotation of that term implies a scale beyond an individual victim.
To continue from your response Suzanne, people all over the country live in daily constant fear of violent crime. I grew up in (survived?) Flint, MI. I have distinct memories of the gang-bangers who drove down our block, very slowly, every day, pointing “finger guns” out the car window at various houses — aren’t they sending a “message” to an entire neighborhood … “look out, you could be next.” I remember the day my mom moved all of our beds to the basement of the house. (I hated sleeping in the basement, BTW, there were always spiders everywhere!)
Back to my point: Does this not rise to the level of terrorizing a community? Targeting a group based on geography? My opinion (I probably have a bias here) is that the crime “drive by shooting kills three year old girl” is more reprehensible even than any hate crime. It is an “ad hominis” crime.
What about the rapist who targets overweight women, or elderly women, or divorced women, isn’t his hatred and desire to damage a specific class of women just as tragic and dangerous? Is this a “hate crime”? Does it not cause a specific segment of the population to live in constant fear. Isn’t he “sending a message” to a specific targeted group? One could even argue, I submit, that most all rape is a “hate crime” in so far as it targets and terrorizes women not men.