Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Attorney General Holder tells Congress new hate crime law needed
06.25.2009 3:04pm EDT
(Washington) Attorney General Eric Holder urged Congress to pass a new hate crimes law so the government could prosecute cases of violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, he cited the recent killing of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The alleged assailant is a white supremacist.“One has to look at the unfortunate history of our nation. There are groups that have been singled out, that have been targets of violence,” the attorney general said. “We have to face and confront that reality.”
Lawmakers debated the possible effect of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named after a gay man killed in Wyoming in 1998. It would allow federal prosecution of violence committed because of the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity of the victim.
For more than a decade, Democrats have sought to update the hate crimes law, which already makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their race, creed or color.
Republicans questioned whether the change would expand federal power unnecessarily into cases already being prosecuted by state and local officials. They also asked why certain victims of violence should be singled out for particular types of protection.
“That’s part of the problem. Some are protected groups and get special protection under this law,” said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the committee’s top Republican. “You argued your case. I’ve listened to it and I’m not persuaded.”
According to FBI data, the number of hate crimes per year is relatively unchanged in the past 10 years. In 1998, the FBI reported 7,755 hate crime incidents and 7,624 in 2007.
About half of all hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. The other two most frequent hate crimes are those motivated by religion or sexual orientation.
Holder said the statistics show hate crimes against Hispanics have increased four years in a row.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said some of the debate in her state over immigration “has been part of hate and people have been beaten up because they happen to be Hispanic, they happen to be on a street corner where somebody doesn’t want them.”
Sessions, who opposes the bill, and Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, who supports it, asked whether the law could be used to prosecute a church leader who speaks out against homosexuality, if a member of that congregation then assaults a gay person.
“This is a bill to hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech,” Holder insisted.
The Traditional Values Coalition is urging lawmakers to vote against the bill, claiming it will jeopardize religious freedoms and “elevate” homosexuality within federal law.
Patrick in CT said: In other words, why give “special” protection to groups that are specially picked out by their assailants for violence? What a ridiculous line of reasoning to hide behind. These folks need to be called out for what they are- bigots.
What does that even mean? You need to check your line of reasoning! Since when does the “why” matter in prosecution. I understand these people were picked out because of their race/religion/sexual preferences, but does that make their beating or murder any worse than someone who was beat or murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? If I, as a white Christian straight male, am assaulted by another white person for no reason, does that make me less assaulted than someone who is assaulted because of their race or sexual preference? No, and if any of you say yes, then you yourself are more of a bigot than any those dastardly nasty Republicans.
Again, and I have said this now 3 times, these are all just words, until they do some ACTION, we need to NOT GIVE A DIME, SINCE THEY DON’T GIVE A D*** about OUR EQUAL RIGHTS…IT’s all words, and at this point we need ACTION on their behalf!!
Religious freedoms to hurt or kill people because of their sexual/ gender identity. That’s just stupid.
Holder is to be congratulated, but I fear the addition of the sexual minorities to the list of groups subject to hate crimes will meet with resistence from all Repubs and a few Dems as well. Too many legislators buy the bilge buzz words of the far right and neocons who claim that giving gays and lesbians the same privileges afforded straights amounts to giving us “special” rights. And even if the federal hate crimes law is amended, I fear too many states, including my own (Texas) will simply ignore it. The fed must mandate that law enforcement grants will be cut off to those states that don’t adopt the law. But it’s still going to be rough going in the congress.
James Withers Said:
“Please don’t reply to Sojurn. She/he is a troll who has been banned.”
But…but…but…sojourn is a human piñata. It would be a crime against nature not to give him/her a good whacking…
OK, fine. *pouts*
What’s this article about anyway? Oh yes, the AG is stating the bloody obvious. Unfortunately, he’s fighting an uphill battle to convince some people of the necessity for expanding existing hate crime legislation. On the one hand there is the very real argument “isn’t all violent crime a hate crime”, and those who make this argument have a point.
The difference is in mens rea – the criminal thought, what the criminal had in their mind at the time of the crime. If their intention is to commit a crime in furtherance of their hatred or bigotry towards a group of people, they should receive an enhanced prison sentence as a result. As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter if that group of people are black, white, straight, gay, Christian or atheist. Hate crime legislation should be expanded to offer protection against bigotry to everyone.
Why? Because while prejudice against Christians is far less common in America than prejudice against gays, it happens, and if we believe that discrimination against gays is wrong we have to accept that discrimination against Christians is also wrong. And if someone attacks me because I’m gay, because they hate gays, I see little difference if someone else attacks a person because they’re Christian.
So expand hate crime legislation to cover everyone, and if it can be shown that a person committed a crime in furtherance of a prejudice towards a group of people, they will receive an enhanced sentence. This also removes the ammunition some groups have for arguing that gays should not be a protected group, and in a sense they’re right. If we really want equality, why should we have special protections under the law? Why should a crime against one of us be treated any more seriously than a crime against one of them? Expand hate crime legislation to cover ALL crimes motivated by prejudice, we will still get the same benefit from it, we won’t be singled out as a “special case”, those opposed to such legislation will have less ammunition to argue against it and everyone’s happy.
Problem solved…until someone comes along and points out a crucial flaw in my logic…
Jeff Sessions makes me ashamed to be from Alabama.
“Some are protected groups and get special protection under this law.” So me wanting a law to deter people from beating me to a pulp for being gay is considered special protection?