Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Neff: Why we need hate crime laws
I crawled out last week from Wonderland — where the gaggle was going gaga over Miss California’s perfectly pageant-like answer to an underhanded question about same-sex marriage — to find actual substantial news had occurred.
In Washington, D.C., the House Judiciary Committee marked up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, readying it for a floor vote.The much-needed measure would give the Justice Department jurisdiction over crimes in which the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
And in Greeley, Colo., a jury returned a guilty verdict against the man accused in the beating death of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman.
Allen Andrade is guilty of first-degree murder.
Allen Andrade is guilty of committing a bias-motivated crime.
Allen Andrade will be in prison when representatives take to the floor to debate the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but lawmakers should know of his deeds before any vote.
They should know that Allen Andrade beat Angie Zapata with a fire extinguisher and then left her lying on the ground.
And they should know that when Angie Zapata awoke from the first beating, Allen Andrade beat her again.
Lawmakers should know Allen Andrade’s words: “Gay things need to die.”
And they should know the words the judge directed at Andrade after the jury returned the guilty verdict: “I hope, Mr. Andrade, as you’re spending the remaining part of your natural life in the Colorado Department of Corrections … that you every day think about the violence and brutality that you caused on this fellow human being and the pain you have caused not only on your family but the family of Angie Zapata.”
Lawmakers should know the words that Angie Zapata’s mother spoke at the trial’s conclusion: “It hurts so bad.”
And lawmakers should know the words that Gonzalo Zapata delivered last week, the day Allen Andrade was convicted of killing his sister: “Only a monster can look at a beautiful 18-year-old and beat her to death. This monster not only hit my sister, but continued to beat her head in over and over and over until her head was crushed in. He left her there to die.”
Critics of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act might point to the verdict against Allen Andrade as proof that hate crimes reform is not needed at the federal level.
Some states prosecute hate crimes, but the federal legislation would help fill gaps — providing Justice Department assistance if a state does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; if a state has requested that the Justice Department assume jurisdiction and if a state has completed prosecution and the Justice Department wants to initiate a subsequent prosecution.
Lawmakers should note, as they hear from the bill’s critics, that Allen Andrade is the first person to be convicted for killing a transgender woman under a hate crime law.
The prosecutors in the case were bold and the exception — Allen Andrade was only the second person in the nation to be tried for killing a transgender person under a hate crime statute.
The trial in Greeley and the guilty verdict draw our attention to the violence perpetrated against GLBT people and the need for action at the federal level.
Colorado sought justice for Angie Zapata, but not every state has a similar hate crimes measure. Five states — Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming — have no hate crimes laws. Fourteen states – Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah (no categories listed), Virginia and West Virginia — have hate crimes laws that do not address sexual orientation or gender identity. And 31 states have hate crimes laws that do not address bias crimes based on gender identity.
Allen Andrade was found guilty as charged, but in too many states Allen Andrade would not have been charged with a bias-motivated crime.
In other cases in other places, anti-GLBT crimes have gone unprosecuted and will go unprosecuted without federal action. And justice will not be sought for the victims of those who believe that “gay things need to die.”
Better YET anyone who says Hate Crime Bills aren’t needed has NEVER (lucky for them) ever been a victim of a hate crime.
I was walking in an area (very popular tourist area) and I was abruptly approached by 4 guys that were gonna jump me after their nasty sexual orientation slurs (you know them all) and luckily I shoved the biggest one of the bunch into the others and took off after they jammed me into a car side mirror…
That was a HATE CRIME! I should be able to walk freely in this country without being assaulted because of my sexuality or PERCEIVED Sexual Orientation! PERIOD.
Get the shit beat out of you or have a loved one murdered (which has also happened to me) and you come back and tell us how this kind of legislation is NOT needed!
“The only thing hate crimes legislation does is lend credence to the right’s argument that we are seeking not just equal, but special rights.”
WOW.
No.
Anyone, majority or minority, can have a hate crime committed against them. If someone was murdered simply because they were white or heterosexual, it’s just as much of a hate crime as if they were black and homosexual.
Anyone who says that hate crime legislation is not needed obviously hasn’t been paying attention to the enormous amount of violence being committed against members of the LGBT community, simply because the victim is non-heterosexual. Were the motive not to instill fear and reinforce homophobic tendencies, it would not be a hate crime.
Even as the fight for women’s rights is making strides, protections for lesbians from violence perpetrated against them because of their sexual orientation has been systematically absent in UN meetings around the globe.
Girls passing out ‘anti-gay’ pamphlets obviously shouldn’t be charged with a hate crime, but that isn’t what hate crime bills are about. Using that as an example is ridiculous.
Either we can have it recognized that violence against LGBT individuals because of the SOLE REASON that the individual was non-heterosexual is wrong, or we can continue to suffer with our cries muffled.
No hate crime laws, huh, are you people crazy…so a person burning a cross on someone’s front lawn should only prosecuted for starting an illegal fire, or hanging a noose from someone’s tree shoud only be prosecuted as trespassing…get real! Hate crimes are done to intimidate people because they belong to a specific group, and seek to perpetuate fear and degradation in that group. That is why a Republican controlled US Supreme Court has held they are legal. Who needs enemies when people in our own community feel Matthew Sheppard’s brutal killers only did grave harm to our heroic Matthew. These disgusting human beings did harm to the entire LGBT community in the US and should be appropriately punished for it. Bravo for hate crimes legistation!
I agree with Chris.
It was just a year or so ago that two teenage girls were charged with a hate crime for simply passing out anti-gay flyers.
The only thing hate crimes legislation does is lend credence to the right’s argument that we are seeking not just equal, but special rights.
In my state we don’t have a hate crimes law, but we do have conceal-and-carry handgun permits. Personally, I think that’s a much more effective deterrent than any piece of legislation.
Wow! Chris misses a couple of very important points. As do most people who think that we do not need hate crime bills:
First, motivation has always been a consideration in the legal system. It has a major impact on arrests, prosecutions and sentences. Motivation, of course, is thought. What was the thinking involved in the crime. To say this amounts to criminalizing thought reflects a complete and utter lack of understanding, knowledge or intelligence.
Second, if a crime is perpetrated for no other reason than, for example, the sexual orientation of the victim, it strikes fear into all members of that group. It would be different if it were a random act and the perpetrator, for example, was only after the victims wallet. A hate crime is an act of terror which strikes fear into a whole group of people. It is, indeed, worse than a random crime. Again, to think otherwise shows a lack of understanding, knowledge or intelligence.
If it stops gay on gay violence, I’ll support it up to a point.
Chris, the reason he was charged and convicted with the hate crime bias was because he would not have killed Angie Zapata had she not been a transgender individual. Had it just been a female that gave bad sex, he would have walked away. His only reason was that Angie was physically male.
Thank you.
I forwarded your article to my Representative in the House.
And it would have been a lesser crime if he said “You should have given me your wallet”? First degree murder is first degree murder, hate crime laws in any form tread dangerously close to criminalizing thoughts. No matter how wrong and despicable Andrade’s thoughts may be, the actual crime he committed was 1st degree murder, and that is all he should have been charged with.
For all the doubters out there that think that adding Transgendered protections to GLBT laws is unnecessary repeat after me: “This is why the Transgendered need to be covered in our laws”. Please realize that when the perp. said “Gay things need to die.” he is talking about all of us, not just the Gays & Lesbians.