Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Is hate crime legislation the way to go?
Once I felt sorry for George W. Bush (yes. I’m a punk). It was during one of the 2000 election debates. Opponent Al Gore noted how he supported hate crime legislation and pointed to the 1998 James Byrd, Jr. lynching, a black Texan whose ankles were tied to the back of a pick-up truck by three white Texans; Byrd was then dragged to his death.
In 1999, then Governor Bush was lobbied by Renee Mullins, Byrd’s daughter, to support hate crime legislation that was named after her father. Bush punted and the legislation never had a chance. When this was brought up in the debate, Bush had a look of someone who didn’t understand what was being asked. And for a quick moment he flashed angry confusion.
”The three men who — who murdered James Byrd. Guess what’s going to happen to them? They’re going to be put to death,” Bush responded. “A jury found them guilty and — it’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death.”
Yes then candidate Bush was a bit off on the details (only two of the defendants were given death sentences; the third was sentenced to life imprisonment), but his overall point was fair. In Texas, death is the ultimate penalty for murder. Would a hate crime law had made much of a difference in the punishment of Byrd’s murderers?
This question I keep coming to when it comes to hate crime laws. I understand why they exist. Crimes based on difference—be it race, gender, sexuality, or national origin—are so out of bounds, that as a community we need to let people know they will not be tolerated. But aren’t all crimes by definition an affront to a municipality? Clearly there are going to be differences in legal responses (there will always be a distinction between those who kill police officers as opposed to those who murder citizens). Was the killing of Sakia Gunn any more wretched than the other sons and daughters whose blood was spilled on the streets of Newark, New Jersey?
Lots of questions this morning And maybe the trouble started by trying to make Bush into a sympathetic figure, but if crimes against gays and lesbians were sentenced to the fullest extent of the law would we want hate crime laws? Maybe it’s time to focus on that.
In a perfect world, where all crimes would be prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law, I would agree. In a world where gays are seen as less than human and people who committ crimes against them are often given a slap on the wrist (10 months in SC), hate crime laws seem necessary. Hate crime laws also allow federal prosecution when local law enforcement drops the ball, or simply doesn’t care.
Tiger,
So is it better to take something that reinforces our inequality?
Sincerely,
James
PS: I’m just thinking out loud here so be gentle.
I very much agree that we need the part of hate crime legislation that gives federal weight to these cases. The same discrimination that motivated the crime is often rampant in the wider community, so the attacker gets off light or goes free if the case stays local. I’m still not sure whether I approve of heaver sentences for bias-motivated crime.
James Withers Said: “So is it better to take something that reinforces our inequality?”
I would use the term “recognize” rather than reinforces. I agree that it does serve to set us apart, but then we already have so many laws discriminating against us that I see it would do more good than harm. Truthfully, in terms of what is classified as a hate crime, I would prefer to see this classification done away with completely, and instead add the charge of domestic terrorism, as this is surely what any hate-based crime does to that particular community, whether in the form of racism, religious persecution, violence against women or crimes based on orientation and gender identity.
As far as being gentle, I much prefer the exchange of ideas, rather than barbs. I think we can accomplish much more this way, and while we may not always agree, I do respect your opinion. If nothing else it challenges me to re-evaluation ideas in which I may have become complacent or entranched. I actually see your disagreements as a service to me
Have a great day.
Again, with this latest blog posting, James Withers proves that he often does not know what he’s talking about.
I used to think of supporting hate crimes legislation as a no-brainer. As I contemplated it more I asked myself how we can consider the life of a police officer, an elderly woman, a black man or an LGBT person any more important than another. A person’s motive for taking the life of another, be it malfeasance or ignorance, is equally wrong. I still support hate crimes legislation, but that is only because the real problem is not being solved. The real problem is that sentencing guidelines are too broad, giving judges latitude to use their judgement to decided how wrong the convicted persons actions are and how they think the individual should be punished.
I would be satisfied if the sentence for beating the crap out of someone, be it a housewife in suburbia or a cop, of whatever race, color, religious belief or sexuality, was the same. Likewise for murder and other crimes. Does anyone else not think the current system is screwed beyond belief?
Hate crime laws exist to address a group of real problems. People are targeted especially based on perceived group membership, the crimes tend to be harsher on those victims, the police tend not to investigate adequately, the attorneys tend not to prosecute adequately, and judges and juries tend not to punish adequately due to their own biases against the victim. I think hate crime laws are a clumsy fix for this, but I really can’t think of anything better. Any fix ultimately comes back to the fact that the victim is incorrectly perceived to be inherently bad, and so any fix will be claimed to be unfair bias in favor of the group. Yet the problem must be addressed.
I actually don’t have a problem with judicial latitude in sentencing, quite the opposite in fact. Even among murders, not all murders, or murderers, are equal.
Years ago when hate crime legislation became part of the public debate, I initially took the knee jerk position that this was an institutionalization of the “thought police” and wrong. I have since come to believe that the benefits outweigh any risks.
Could hate crime laws be taken too far? Certainly. But most ,if not all, laws can be over-enforced. Unless or until that becomes a legitimate concern, I would rather those many on here refer to as “domestic terrorists” for good reasons be punished in a way that ensures everyone knows that targeting communities will not be tolerated. People on the margins are targeted quite often specifically because of the belief that the crime will be ignored. And while being sentenced with an additional hate crime charge can have repercussions, please remember that it typically adds only a year or two to the sentence.
In the meantime, police and prosecutorial agencies across the country have shown a great reluctance to investigate or pursue hate crime charges (especially with LGBT victims) even where such laws exist. We can only speculate whether the motivations are political or related to personal prejudices.
More interesting is Mr. Withers question of whether such legislation reinforces minority status. This has been a question in public debate around many issues for quite a while, and quite frankly I have never found it convincing in the contexts most people want to apply it.
It’s pretty obvious that federal policies regarding Native Americans (American Indians, or First Peoples) have primarily served to disintegrate those communities for some time. The same can be seen with Aboriginal people in Australia among many others. But I simply do not agree that any program which is aimed at helping or protecting minorities is ultimately defeating of that community. And I say that because I think that if you really want to argue that hate crime legislation ultimately harms the communities it is designed to protect you must also argue the same for all other such legislation.
It also seems pertinent to remind that such laws would protect all people (straight, homosexual or bi) from attacks for the way their attacker perceives them, not their actual orientation. And that laws protecting gender orientation would be designed to protect you whether you thought you were gender conforming or not.
If your defense for murder is that you felt contaminated by being touched by a dirty (cross-dressing)fag and therefore you were obligated to kill him (her), it makes a lot of sense to me that protecting the local community is better done by making it publicly and explicitly clear that such actions will not be tolerated. The explicit condemnation of the bias seems very important.
I grew up in a, and currently live in a different, community where crimes against minorities would and are ignored because it would require condemning the actions of good, upstanding citizens. People definitely learn that certain groups can be safely targeted without fear of repercussions. I believe the only way this behavior will be extinguished in a reasonable amount of time will be if the opposite message is clearly and consistently sent.
My mental journey on this matter has been very similar to Interested’s. What ultimately caused me to abandon the “thought crime” fear was the realization that, as hate-CRIME laws, these only apply with an underlying, predicate act that is already illegal.
Secondly, a bias enhancement is essentially a consideration of the defendant’s mental state. Mental state is already considered in the criminal-justice system – e.g. how we consider a premeditated murder worthy of more severe punishment than a rage-provoked crime of passion. And we are right to make this consideration, in view of the roles the criminal justice system serves for society.
Jurists offer many philosophical rationales for the existence of the criminal justice system (e.g. rehabilitation, retribution), but almost all of them include at least some component of directly protecting society at large. And society faces a greater statistical degree of risk from someone who demonstrates himself able to plan murders in cold blood than from someone who simply got pushed over the emotional edge by factors beyond his control.
I would argue that society faces a similarly heightened degree of risk from bias offenders. Not only does a bias offender feel that violence is an appropriate response to things that bother him; he also has a hair-trigger for being bothered (the mere EXISTENCE of certain kinds of people unlike themselves). And, to top it off, it’s a trigger very likely to get tripped in an increasingly mobile modern society, and a trigger that’s inconsistent with the very character of a democratic, pluralistic society which recognizes individual rights.
Look at racial profiling by Law Enforcement. Somebody is being singled out and through no fault of their own. They may not match any description or even be near anything that happened but through no fault of their own they are singled out.
Gay people are singled out by violent criminals because they have no fear of retribution. All hate crimes do not dictate a sentence of death. Most are stupid, violent acts against people simply for being an unofficial member of a group.
Minorities have always had to struggle for equal treatment under the law. Many of the people involved may hold the same views as the perpetrators and may therefore render biased verdicts.
It’s simply about evening up the playing field. Most violent hate crimes are perpetrated by heterosexual men. Not always white but frequently. They have a distinct advantage in the simple fact that there are more people, even today, that oversee the enforcement of law including the criminal justice system.
How many violent criminals were hand slapped because the “dirty queer” made a pass at them? How many straight guys claim to have had the she-male encounter where they reach down and something is there? This is total bullsh*t. This happens about as much as winning the Power Ball Lottery yet any straight guy you ever meet will have a story claiming this has happened to them. When they go before a Judge, jury, or simply ask for help from the law their compadres go along with the concept that all gay guys are going to bed down with these fugly assh*les.
It is time for an even playing field until it levels itself off. ADA protects the handi-capped. We have equal opportunity laws because things are not equal. We just need to include everybody affected and not just certain groups. If things happen to a group because of something they have no control over there should be laws in effect to make sure these things stop happening.
We need to convince the criminals that they will be dealt with and the only way to get the “law” on our side is to force them to be on our side. They have proven they will not comply voluntarily.
How often we hear that “he made a pass at me” or something equally as full of sh*t. People have been cleared of charges or gotten reduced sentences using this defense.
For some odd reason many overweight girls are attracted to me. If they express an interest can I then kill them because I am not attracted to women? It doesn’t happen like that but it happens the other way frequently.
WE know these things happen. Not passing hate crimes legislation is basically a hate crime itself. People are being injured, threatened and killed and doing nothing about it makes our elected officials complicit.
Law enforcement is not a popularity contest. Strict guidelines must be set and enforcement and punishment should be mandated until this ends. Most hate crimes involve violence.
We are unequal so reinforcing it is just calling a duck a duck. Yes, we are not equal under the law and if you do nothing about it we will always be. Hate Crimes Legislation is hugely important. Once passed it will take decades before actual enforcement occurs so get on it Legislaters. Lives are being destroyed by the worst elements in our society.
A major reason for “hate crimes” laws is, to tell the police that they should take these crimes seriously.
When my house has been vandalized by being spray painted with the word “FAGGOT” in 4-foot tall letters, the polices officer flatly refused to even write a report. He said it was a “petty” offense, and not worth the bother to report. When my cars were vandalized similarly, on three different occasions, those three police officers also refused to file reports.
It is routine in this city for police officers to refuse service when they learn that the victim is gay. A law telling them that they shall take the crimes seriously, and provide police service, is sorely needed.