The legislation, backed by President Barack Obama, would extend federal protections granted under the 1968 hate crimes law to cover those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.This legislation is a barometer of liberal sacred cows, pitting beloved positions against each other and seeing which prevails. First, there is the concern for the constitutional rights of defendants, Of course, there is the concern for discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics. On top of that, there is the concern for free speech. Of course, it also implicates concern for expansion of federal crimes. And finally, there is the concern for the safeguard of alternative lifestyles.
“This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.
Over at Talkleft, Jeralyn Merritt has been a strong voice against hate crimes legislation, calling them unnecessary and ill-conceived, much to the consternation of many of her readers.
I must firmly disagree with you on this, and (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:23:42 AM ESTcelebrate the passage of this legislation. First, when a hate crime is committed, it is not just an attack on one person, it’s an attack on an entire group of people, always a minority. This amendment recognizes that. Second, we already care about what’s in the mind of a person accused of committing a crime, and will continue to do so unless we go to a strict liability system of criminal law (and I do not think we should).Finally, I think it’s really very important to point out that this is an expansion of existing law . In particular, it expands hate crimes protections to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Whether this amendment passes or not, the underlying hate crimes legislation will remain in effect. So I have to admit that I find yelling “stop” here, now, and making common cause with people like James Dobson (who opposes the amendment specifically because of who it is designed to protect) gives me a queasy feeling.
Yessir! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by ChiTownDenny on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:33:10 PM EST
The desire to push aside reason for the desire to vindicate the special wrong done to people for the absolute ugliest, nastiest, stupidest of reasons, is understandable. The resistance appears almost disingenuous; how can one not feel outrage at an attack on another human being because he’s gay or she’s lesbian? That there walk amongst us people so blind and angry to do harm to others because of their blind hatred is a travesty.
And yet there need be no special law to “address” this travesty. We have laws, though the spottiness of enforcement is an issue that need be kept in mind. That police are often at the forefront of those who don’t care much for gays, or find themselves more attuned to those who would assault them, presents a secondary problem that requires redress. Once enforced, life in prison for murder is as much of a deterrant as needed. This is not a life plus cancer opportunity for thinking evil thoughts.
But more laws does nothing but vindicate an emotional disgust, no matter how understandable that disgust might be. The damage to more fundamental rights, however, every time we want to ramp up our attack under the guise of a “special situation,” is what invariably comes back to haunt us, to damage us, to cause far more serious and permanent harm than can be offset by the euphoria that a group deserving of our concern received special treatment.
There will always be sacred cows, and once we get past this one (and we will), another will vying for our attention. But over time, we must remember that it’s the fundamental rights that will serve to protect us all, and we really can’t let our focus, and ideological perspective, change with every new cow that wanders into the pasture. I’m with Jeralyn, This is bad law.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yup. The Matthew Shepard case is probably the worst possible poster for this kind of legislation — murder (regardless of the sexual orientation of any of the parties) is already illegal, and when the local authorities are unwilling to prosecute murderers (as was not the case in this instance) there are the parallel Federal denial-of-civil-rights-by-offing-the-guy avenues for prosecution (whether or not those are good idea is another discussion; I think that they are, but…).
I would have liked to see some lengthy argument and discussion of whether and how this sort of legislation would be of benefit in lesser crimes — but we didn’t get that; we just got a rush to pass the law.
I can see places where a distinction could fairly be drawn, such as an assault that fails to arise to the level of a felony for lack of sufficiently serious harm. Maybe, if hate could be adequately defined and with sufficient safeguards on proof to prevent prosecutors and judges from divining intent from the mystical reaches of the mind, this should be enhanced to a felony despite the absence of harm. Maybe there are some areas where we need to address gaps in the law.
But that’s never been the discussion, and it isn’t the discussion with this legislation.
From a strictly legalistic point of view, the motivation is relevant to proving mens rea (intent). So if we as a society need a method of vindicating our outrage at these things, the law already provides it.
And if we need to do something about prosecuting hate crimes let’s just enforce the underlying laws vigorously – as we do when, say, rich white guys get attacked.
Ultimately, all hate crime law is about punishing bad ideas, and basic free speech principles really should trump that.
Realistically, if the police laugh at a gay person who has just been assaulted, hate crime legislation isn’t going change that attitude.
From the text of the bill, I see that Congress has once again expanded the use of the Commerce Clause to justify a law on something that the Federal Government has no business regulating. It would be nice if the courts would slap down these unwarranted expansions of Federal power.
There was no rush; this legislation has been kicking around since Bush II, but there weren’t enough votes to pass it.
I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with punishing bad ideas — I do it all the time. So does our host.
The government, though, punishing bad ideas — in and of themselves, without accompanying behavior — is one of those things that’s proven, time and time again, to be a really, really bad idea. Our cousins to the north are busy demonstrating that, and they’re by no means the best/worst poster kids for that, either.