The Senate has yet to act, but the administration may be signaling its intent to veto this bill. Dale Carpenter's take, at The Volokh Conspiracy:
Andrew Sullivan, who like me opposes hate crimes laws as a general matter, complains that Bush's [expected] veto of this bill represents a double-standard under which gays are just about the only commonly victimized group left out of the special protection federal law already provides....
The problem with this criticism, however, is that the bill does much more than simply add "sexual orientation" to the existing federal law on hate crimes passed in 1968.... The bill considerably expands federal jurisdiction over hate crimes in general, for all categories, by eliminating the current requirement that the crime occur while the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity. That jurisdictional limitation has kept federal involvement very limited in an area where state authority has traditionally reigned....
The veto of an amendment merely adding sexual orientation to existing federal law would pretty clearly reflect an anti-gay double-standard. A veto of this much more comprehensive bill does not.
Log Cabin has a different view, praising the bill and noting its bipartisan support. (Aside: why is Log Cabin still unable to post a press release on its website the same day they email it out far and wide?)
And Jamie Kirchick weighs in.
An emerging federalist consensus: The bill raises a number of concerns, none of which seem central to its opponents on the anti-gay right to whom Bush may feel he needs to pander. For them, the key point is not the expansion of federal jurisdiction; it's gay inclusion and terrors relating to the normalization of homosexuality.
36 Comments for “Houses Passes Hate Crimes Bill, Veto Looms?”
posted by ETJB on
Yawn! Hopefully the bill will pass. In case you notice, the Federal government already has jux. over federal crimes that do not happen on federal property, so that argument is pretty silly.
Moorhead, MN
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can explain why this bill is so stupid easily; this does not qualify as a hate crime under it.
Personally, I think if you go onto a school bus with a knife looking for a specific victim and stab them twenty times, there’s hate involved in that somewhere; however, since the victim is white and male, it doesn’t matter.
posted by ETJB on
Well, Libertarians oppose civil rights laws so that does not surprise me.
First off all, you need to ask honest questions; Does the state or city have a hate crime law to begin with? What does it cover? How does it operate?
Did the student target the other student because of the victims
class (race, color, religion, etc) that is covered in the hate crime law?
The fact that the victim is a white male does not matter. It is entirely possible that an African American could target some one for being white, or Asian or Jewish or Arab, etc.
If a hate crime law covers race, color, and gender then it has to apply to both white and black Americans, men and women. However, that does not mean that all crimes are classified as a hate crime.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but you see, ETJB, those are all questions and pieces of evidence that can be brought up during the jury trial.
But what worries gay leftists like yourself is your belief that local law enforcement, judges, and juries are too underfunded, incompetent, and homophobic to make decisions that suit your need for vengeance and punishment for anyone who attacks a gay person.
So that’s why you support this “hate crimes” law — which ensures that any crime involving a gay person receives extra funding from the Feds, investigation and prosecution by the FBI, and for the Attorney General or their proxies to reopen the case and try the person again for the same crime on the Federal level when, and I quote, “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence”.
You and your Democrat cronies could save a lot of space and be far more honest if you simply said, “Any act of violence against a gay person will automatically be treated as a Federal case and receive a harsher sentence.”
But it would have made patently obvious that your concern is not with “equality”, but with “special protections”.
posted by On the flip side on
Gay on straight crime would be covered too. So what’s the big deal?
posted by Brian Miller on
I despair of the people who support this bill, and the people in power who oppose it.
The people who support us would have us believe that Matt Shepard’s killers are walking free, that anti-gay violent crime is soaring, and that the police wouldn’t otherwise follow up on violent crime or assault. They’d have us believe that for anti-gay crime, stiffer penalties will reduce frequency — but that for general crime, stiffer penalties “aren’t the answer (insert some inane poppycock about ‘education and understanding’ here).”
Finally, most supporters of the bill would argue that gay people are best protected by having our Second Amendment rights eviscerated.
Opponents of the bill on the Republican right don’t oppose it because it makes some people “more equal than others,” but merely because it would benefit gays. They see no problem with creating privileged classes out of some people — but not those they don’t like.
What happened to folks who believe in real equality? Or are there fewer of us out there than I thought?
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay on straight crime would be covered too
Red herring. Where are the straight rights groups complaining of soaring incidents of “breeder bashing?”
posted by Timothy on
I’m not a big fan of enhanced sentencing for hate crimes. I am, however, a big fan of federal assistance in “technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of” hate crimes.
My issue is this: if there are to be hate crimes laws, then it must encompass all those groups who are currently being selected and preyed upon. And there is no question whatsoever that sexual orientation is one such category. In fact, hate crimes based on orientation occurs more frequently than hate crimes based on religion – which is a protected class.
Ironically, the young white boy reference above currently does have the assistance of the federal government if it were determined that he was stabbed because he’s white or Christian but NOT if it was because the perpetrator wanted to stab a faggot and chose him.
I would like to see the sentence enhancements go away. But until they do, excluding orientation from the definitions of protected classes would clearly send the message that the Federal Government very much cares if you attack someone solely because of their race, religion, or ethnicity, but well, because they are gay… not so much. Here’s a bat.
posted by John on
Hope all you loony toon gay conservatives are happy with the Republican debates!
posted by Brian Miller on
I am, however, a big fan of federal assistance in “technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of” hate crimes.
I’m not — it still creates inequality. Why should the rich white gay guy who was murdered get a full forensic investigation richly funded by the federal government, while the poor white straight guy who was murdered sits in the “cold cases” file due to a lack of forensics funding?
Forensics and crime-fighting technologies should be employed equally for every violent crime or murder, regardless of the economic, social, sexual or other status of the victim. Anything else is a dangerous step towards a tiered justice system.
My issue is this: if there are to be hate crimes laws, then it must encompass all those groups who are currently being selected and preyed upon.
That would also be known as “general criminal law.”
posted by Avee on
It’s the role of states to fund forensic research into local crimes. Washington has a big budget deficit (unlike many states), so why is more federally raised taxpayer money beings sent BACK to the states to pay for local crime investigations? And btw, Wyoming’s state budget has soared with new boondogles since Matthew Sheperd – money that could have been spent on beefing up crime investigation, if the state felt it were necessary (and nothing in the Sheperd case indicates it was necessary).
An unnecessary, counter-productive bill being opposed for all the wrong reasons, Indeed!
posted by Brian Miller on
Wyoming’s state budget has soared with new boondogles since Matthew Sheperd – money that could have been spent on beefing up crime investigation, if the state felt it were necessary (and nothing in the Sheperd case indicates it was necessary).
I enjoy asking advocates of “hate crime” legislation what they don’t like about the Shepard case.
The perps were quickly caught, were charged and could have received the death penalty, but plead their way down to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Short of executing them outright, nothing more serious could have been done to them.
Yet “hate crime” law advocates act as though his attackers are out free on the streets today. Bizarre.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mr. Miller, you and Avee are right.
The gay leftists pushing this bill insist it’s necessary because local law enforcement is supposedly underfunded and needs assistance from the FBI — but not in the vast majority of cases.
What this bill is about, in my opinion, is codifying into the law the beliefs of gay leftists that local law enforcement, judiciaries, and juries are all hopelessly underfunded, incompetent, and homophobic.
Unfortunately, as the example of the Shepard case shows, it’s not true. Worse, in the process of doing so, it raises numerous questions of constitutionality and a flagrant violation of equality and fair treatment under the law, since it codifies clearly that certain victims will receive special treatment based on what they are, rather than what was done to them.
posted by On the flip side on
Red herring. Where are the straight rights groups complaining of soaring incidents of “breeder bashing?”
That’s not the point. The point is, should it happen, it would be covered. No harm no foul. No one gets “special rights.” Everyone is protected if there is a need.
Why is there a debate anyway?
posted by Tim Hulsey on
ND30: Do you support the repeal of currently enacted federal hate-crimes statutes? And do you think there’s a reasonable chance these statutes could be repealed?
posted by Brian Miller on
ND30: Do you support the repeal of currently enacted federal hate-crimes statutes?
I am not ND30, but I do support the repeal of those statutes.
If it’s found that enhanced penalties are a deterrent for violence, the enhanced penalties should be applied to ALL violent crime, not just crime against certain people.
The point is, should it happen, it would be covered.
It doesn’t happen. It’s like arguing that affirmative action can prevent anti-white discrimination in employment too. It’s an absurd proposition to begin with.
No one gets “special rights.”
Of course people get special rights. Prosecutors will attempt to glom a hate crime charge onto any situation where a straight man and a gay man get into an altercation, and the temptation will exist for some to out-and-out lie in order to get a “hate crime” charge to stick.
Why is there a debate anyway?
Because some of us believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30: Do you support the repeal of currently enacted federal hate-crimes statutes? And do you think there’s a reasonable chance these statutes could be repealed?
Philosophically, I would have no problem whatsoever with repealing those.
But what you need to keep in mind, Tim, is that the hate-crimes statutes already in place differ from the proposed pandering and special rights law in two respects; one, they apply only to Federally-protected activities such as voting, and two, they relate to characteristics specifically barred from being used as a reason for discriminatory action in the Constitution itself — religion (First Amendment), race (Fifteenth Amendment), national origin (Fourteenth Amendment), or sex (19th Amendment).
Also, if you look at those amendments, you notice something, especially in the Fifteenth and Nineteenth; the power of Congress to make laws concerning the enforcement of those is specifically enumerated.
Now, explain to us this; why were leftists and Democrats content for years to live within these limitations when it came to race, religion, and national origin, but when it comes to sexual orientation, insist that local law enforcement, judiciaries, and juries are too underfunded, too incompetent, and too homophobic to adquately pass sentences, and that the Federal government should be allowed to ignore and retry anyone they like if they don’t like the sentence?
posted by Tim Hulsey on
Now, explain to us this; why were leftists and Democrats content for years to live within these limitations when it came to race, religion, and national origin [&c.] ?
The federal government hasn’t been content to live within these limitations when it comes to hate-crimes prosecutions. If a local hate-crimes trial results in a verdict that federal authorities deem unsatisfactory, the defendants will most likely face a second federal trial for violating the victim’s civil rights. Of course, this particular course of action cannot be pursued if a hate crime involves sexual orientation — and that’s because sexual orientation is the only major hate-crimes category currently not covered under federal law.
The real question here is when Democrats (and a few Republicans) suddenly discovered that gays and lesbians might have be worth protecting. It’s not something they considered when they last had control of Congress. I suspect the story is longer than I have time or space to tell, but it involves an ideological realignment of the Democratic Party since the last time they controlled Congress and Republicans controlled the White House (no more Dixiecrats).
Just because Bush has threatened to veto this bill doesn’t mean he has suddenly discovered subsidiarity and states’ rights. Opposition to the bill hasn’t been based on the expansion of federal power, but on its inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a protected category among the others.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
But what you need to keep in mind, Tim, is that the hate-crimes statutes already in place differ from the proposed pandering and special rights law in two respects ….
Three respects, actually — the third being that “the proposed pandering and special rights law” covers sexual orientation, while “the hate crimes statutes already in place” do not. Republican opposition to the bill has been based almost entirely on this third point.
posted by Brian Miller on
If a local hate-crimes trial results in a verdict that federal authorities deem unsatisfactory, the defendants will most likely face a second federal trial for violating the victim’s civil rights.
This is actually a major part of the problem. The federal government, constitutionally, has no rightful role in criminal law outside of treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Those are the three areas the Constitution allows federal “criminal prosecutions” within.
If the federal government doesn’t like how a state is prosecuting a certain case, it has no power to do anything about it except through the judiciary — where a victim should go if he believes that he was not sufficiently protected by the law (a violation of his 14th Amendment rights).
Alas, it would appear that George W. Bush isn’t the only person in politics today who views the Constitution as “just a goddamned piece of paper.”
posted by Tim Hulsey on
This is actually a major part of the problem. The federal government, constitutionally, has no rightful role in criminal law outside of treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.
You forgot to include any offense which crosses state lines.
But even if your general constitutional point were correct, Brian — and it hasn’t been since the passage of the 14th Amendment — I doubt this particular horse will ever be coaxed or prodded back in the barn. Given that federal agencies will get involved in hate-crimes prosecutions whether you like it or not, why should they abstain solely from those cases where a victim’s sexual orientation is involved?
posted by Brian Miller on
You forgot to include any offense which crosses state lines.
In that situation, the federal government has no power other than to apprehend the suspects under the Long Arm Statute.
even if your general constitutional point were correct, Brian — and it hasn’t been since the passage of the 14th Amendment
Here’s the text of the 14th Amendment. It doesn’t give Congress the power to create new criminal law — but rather only the power to ensure that the law is equally enforced.
This is the bit of the 14th that most clearly relates to hate crimes laws, in fact:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Commonly known as the “equal protection clause,” this section of the 14th would arguably render “special protections” null and void, since they deny equal protection to people not covered within their purview.
I doubt this particular horse will ever be coaxed or prodded back in the barn.
In that case, why don’t we just throw out the whole Constitution and give up the pretension that it’s an important or meaningful document?
Special interest groups have been eviscerating the document for years. Now we have “campaign finance reform,” restrictions on political speech, the USA PATRIOT Act, warrantless secret searches/siezures, marriage segregation, and now criminal law segregation.
Every single one of those violates basic principles of the Constitution. Every single one of them is justified with “well, the horse is out of the barn anyway.” So what’s the point of the Constitution again?
BTW — One of my biggest pet peeves are folks from any political persuasion who will complain ceaselessly about how such-and-such a law or policy by the opposition “violates their constitutional rights” — but who will happily walk roughshod over the bits of the Constitution that they don’t like.
If Democrats and Republicans are going to lobby against the provisions of the Constitution, they should just say so out in the open and propose amendments or a Constitutional convention to eliminate those pesky amendments that make their legislation illegal. Wilfully pursuing unconstitutional legislation is not only unethical, but a violation of their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution itself.
posted by grendel on
“In that situation, the federal government has no power other than to apprehend the suspects under the Long Arm Statute.”
doesn’t the commerce clause give Congress criminal authority over virtually anything that crosses states lines, essentially? Though I guess United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) stands for the proposition that there are some limits federal criminal commerce clause jurisdiction, that decision has been read narrowly and never really has not led to any coherent constitutional theory limiting Congress’s authority to create criminal laws under commerce clause jurisdiction.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
Commonly known as the “equal protection clause,” this section of the 14th would arguably render “special protections” null and void, since they deny equal protection to people not covered within their purview.
There are valid reasons to oppose hate-crimes statutes. This is not one of them.
Hate-crimes statutes address a specific type of crime, not a specific type of victim. A racially motivated assault against a white victim would be prosecuted under the same hate-crimes statute as a racially motivated assault against an Asian-American or an African-American victim.
All persons are equally included within the legal protections of hate-crimes legislation. Therefore, hate-crimes legislation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If a local hate-crimes trial results in a verdict that federal authorities deem unsatisfactory, the defendants will most likely face a second federal trial for violating the victim’s civil rights.
If the victims were engaging in a Federally-protected activity like voting, yes.
But if it simply was an act of violence against them, forget it; look at James Byrd, Jr., for example. The Federal government didn’t intervene at all for that very reason — not a protected activity.
Of course, they didn’t need to; some of those very local law enforcement agencies, judges, and juries that leftist gays and Democrats claim are completely incompetent and homophobic managed to enforce state laws that, even without a hate-crimes statute, sent two of his murderers to death and one to life without parole.
posted by Timothy on
Me: “I am, however, a big fan of federal assistance in “technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of” hate crimes.”
Brian: “I’m not — it still creates inequality. Why should the rich white gay guy who was murdered get a full forensic investigation richly funded by the federal government, while the poor white straight guy who was murdered sits in the “cold cases” file due to a lack of forensics funding?”
For the exact same reasons that attention is paid to the guy with drug-resistant TB as opposed to the lady with Emphasema. Or the reason that a victim of a serial killer gets Federal attention while the victim of the angry spouse does not.
Because it’s specialized and requires a unique understanding of the crime.
As with serial murders or assasinations, hate crimes are committed in patterns that are dissimilar to crimes of passion or greed. So a series of serial murders require and receive a different response than a single murder.
If federal profilers or forensic assistance would be of value in an area that the local officers are unfamiliar then I think it appropriate to use them. That would apply – to my way of thinking – to a number of situations from serial murders to cross burnings to gay bashings.
If I understand your point, you would rather that such crimes go unsolved rather than start a slippery slope towards inequal justice (I hope I’m not introducing a straw man – but this does seem to be what you are saying). On that we will just have to disagree.
Incidentally, I’ve no idea why you care about the economic position of the two persons in your example. We don’t (or shouldn’t) base our efforts towards law enforcement upon the balance sheet of the victim. Introducing the idea that being a rich gay guy somehow makes one any less qualified for justice than a poor straight guy is quite disturbing. But, then again, I may be reading too much into that comment.
posted by ETJB on
North Dallas;
“Those are all questions and pieces of evidence that can be brought up during the jury trial.”
Well, if the state or city in question has a hate crime law (and what it covers) can be found by looking it up online.
“But what worries gay leftists”
Did I state that I was a ‘leftist’ or even gay? More great libertarian mind reading, no doubt…
“your belief”
Really? You can read my mind?
“your need for vengeance and punishment for anyone who attacks a gay person.”
Anyone who attacks anyone — gay or straight. Should be punished. Or do libertarians now believe in anarchy?
“Which ensures that any crime involving a gay person receives extra funding from the Feds…”
Um. No, not really no. Not all crimes committed against a person are hate crimes or bias motivated crimes.
If the bill includes ‘sexual orientation’ that means bias motivated crimes committed against people for being gay or straight.
My concern is with equal rights. I am certainly open to opposing this hate crime law or hate crime laws in general.
However, you are not really making a good case.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, if the state or city in question has a hate crime law (and what it covers) can be found by looking it up online.
Nope. You can bring up under ANY law a complete description of the situation, including what the defendant was saying, what the defendant had planned out in advance, and so forth. Indeed, that’s part of the way in which you demonstrate motive in criminal trials; there’s nothing stopping a prosecutor from bringing forward a witness who can testify that a person was screaming “faggot, faggot” as he assaulted someone.
If federal profilers or forensic assistance would be of value in an area that the local officers are unfamiliar then I think it appropriate to use them. That would apply – to my way of thinking – to a number of situations from serial murders to cross burnings to gay bashings.
Unfortunately, that’s already allowed under current law.
What ISN’T allowed — and what Democrats want — is for the Federal government to be allowed to automatically overrule state and local law enforcement, judiciaries, and juries, and impose whatever punishments it wants.
Furthermore, this Federal involvement will take place, not for specific categories of crime like murders or assaults, or for activities that are specifically protected by Federal law, but for ANY crime, regardless of how small, that they believe is committed on the basis of “bias”.
Put bluntly, you could have Federal involvement for a purse-snatching from a lesbian if they even THINK there was bias involved, but not if a straight man was murdered.
That’s wack, man.
posted by Brian Miller on
For the exact same reasons that attention is paid to the guy with drug-resistant TB as opposed to the lady with Emphasema. Or the reason that a victim of a serial killer gets Federal attention while the victim of the angry spouse does not.
Because it’s specialized and requires a unique understanding of the crime.
Nonsense. Forensic evidence isn’t “more necessary” in the murder of a gay man than in the murder of a straight man.
There’s no difference whatsoever other than the motivation — which is not important within a criminal trial anyway. Intent to murder/assault is all that’s required to convict.
I so tire of efforts to make gay people “proprietary” and “special” and in so doing, isolate us from the mainstream. Ridiculous assertions claiming that assaults on gays require “special expertise” only further isolates us and undermines our credibility in the broader community.
posted by ETJB on
“You can bring up under ANY law a complete description of the situation, including what the defendant was saying, what the defendant had planned out in advance, and so forth.”
Yes, although some of that is not free and some courts have not yet dumped everything on their web page.
“What ISN’T allowed — and what Democrats want”
and many Republicans and Independents. Yes, the Libertarian Party oppses hate crime laws because it wants to take America back to the 18th or 19th century. No doubt that was a magical time for gay people until those big, bad evil liberals got involved….
“for the Federal government to be allowed to automatically overrule state and local law enforcement, judiciaries, and juries, and impose whatever punishments it wants.”
IF it is a hate crime. The Federal government can get involved if it is needed. They can offer resources to state and local law enforcement. Does that mean that all crimes are hate crimes? No. Does it mean that all police are stupid, bigots? No.
“You could have Federal involvement for a purse-snatching from a lesbian.”
IF the lesbian targed the victim due to her sexual orientation or race or color or religion or disability. Although I doubt that their are lots of lesbian running wild snatching purses.
Again, if a straight men is killed because of his sexual orientation then that is probably a bias motivated crime. You keep insisting that such a law would not apply to straight people, which is simply a lie.
posted by Timothy on
I so tire of efforts to make gay people “proprietary” and “special” and in so doing, isolate us from the mainstream. Ridiculous assertions claiming that assaults on gays require “special expertise” only further isolates us and undermines our credibility in the broader community.
Brian, may I submit to you the possibility that your opposition lies in the notion that this may benefit gay people unduly?
Wait, before you start typing, go back and read not only the previous paragraph but also what I said earlier. At no point did I try and make the case that attacks on gay persons requires special accomodations. I didn’t talk specifically about hate crimes against gay persons. I discussed the special requirements to fighting crimes that are based on group-hatred as opposed to passion or greed. That could be because of religion or race or, to my way of thinking, anything.
If you stop and think about this (please do before you respond), I’m sure that you will agree that the vast majority of crimes that police forces see are caused by persons that are somewhat predictable. Most murders or assaults are family members or others with a personal grudge. While this may not be every case, it does give the police an advantage of knowing where to start at least in most cases.
However, serial killers clearly require extra knowledge by professionals. Surely you would agree with that. I’ve read that hate crimes do as well and have no reason to accept that you know better about the needs of such a case than those who have made policing their careers and lives.
If unusual cases require specialized attention, there are few legitimate reasons to oppose allowing the federal government to provide it. I find the one you have selected to be quite telling.
I suppose one could take the federalist position and state that no federal attention should ever be given to crime. While I don’t agree with that, at least it would be principled.
However, you do not take that approach. Your objection is that it might be perceived as benefitting gay people or undermine credibility.
You cannot see that I’m talking about federal assistance for ALL hate crimes – because you are stuck at “don’t do anything that might help gay people and provoke a backlash”.
If you think that gay people should not seek resolutions to their concerns because it might scare the gay-haters, you are of course entitled to that position. I don’t much respect it, but fearful people often are willing to sit at the back of the bus to avoid confrontation. I do understand that thinking.
And while I don’t favor enhanced sentences, I cannot make the argument that race, religion, and sex should be considered for hate crimes federal assistance but sexual orientation should not because… well, because… ummm, cuz they won’t like us.
posted by Brian Miller on
may I submit to you the possibility that your opposition lies in the notion that this may benefit gay people unduly
You certainly may submit it, although it would be inaccurate.
I actually believe that it will harm gay people for several reasons:
1) Resentment. Imagine the buzz that will go down when the local white poor straight guy is shot to death and no forensics are done, but a local gay guy is beaten and the police are pulling out all the stops to get forensic work done. What do you think the response will be?
2) Equality. Take this a step further. How can gay people who support this “hate crime” legislation demand special protections yet also demand equal treatment? You must have one or the other, by default.
Ultimately, hate crimes not only create inequality for the majority, but they also create inequality for gay people — since once you accept that “societal priorities” may result in legal inequality, you cannot complain when legal inequality hits the gay community in the form of marriage bans or adoption bans.
I prefer a more productive path best articulated in the country’s founding document: “all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. . . among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
At no point did I try and make the case that attacks on gay persons requires special accomodations. I didn’t talk specifically about hate crimes against gay persons. I discussed the special requirements to fighting crimes that are based on group-hatred as opposed to passion or greed.
Crimes are crimes.
If you break into and steal my car to get money to buy a Nintendo, or to feed your drug habit (two very different “causes”), it shouldn’t matter. The crime — grand theft auto — is the same, and so should be the punishment.
There’s no difference in terms of assault or murder, too. There’s no “special” way to arrest or convict someone who beats you because you’re black, or gay, or who beats you because you’re wearing a Red Sox hat and he’s a Yankees fan. In all three cases, the crime is assault — no “special requirements” exist beyond the requirement to arrest and convict the assailant.
What hate crimes laws do is allocate greater resources — from a limited pool — towards certain violent crimes. That means that the same crime committed against some groups — by default — become “worse” than the same crime committed against others. And that’s wrong.
If unusual cases require specialized attention, there are few legitimate reasons to oppose allowing the federal government to provide it.
Other than that pesky Constitution you keep telling me we should just ignore.
I suppose one could take the federalist position and state that no federal attention should ever be given to crime. While I don’t agree with that, at least it would be principled.
However, you do not take that approach.
Actually, I did. I pointed out earlier to you that the Constitution did indeed forbid what you were advocating, and your response was more or less “who cares.”
Your objection is that it might be perceived as benefitting gay people or undermine credibility.
No, the two tenets of my position are:
1) It unfairly creates inequalities in the basic law enforcement regime to create dubious “benefits” for gay people;
2) The resulting negative blowback from this is far greater in negativity than the “harm” caused by simply allowing crime to be prosecuted equally regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim.
Your “I’m reading homophobia between the lines” argument just isn’t going to fly, BTW. I’m an out gay man and quite politically active in gay marriage and other causes related to LGBT equality.
It’s just that I’m consistent. When I call for equality, I mean actual equality.
When you call for equality, you mean special privileges that go against the Constitution. That’s not equality, no matter how you spin it.
If you think that gay people should not seek resolutions to their concerns because it might scare the gay-haters, you are of course entitled to that position.
And if you believe that homosexuality should be punished with the electric chair, you are of course entitled to that position too.
(It’s about as close to your position as the quoted statement is to mine).
while I don’t favor enhanced sentences, I cannot make the argument that race, religion, and sex should be considered for hate crimes federal assistance but sexual orientation should not because… well, because… ummm, cuz they won’t like us.
You seem to have completely ignored my prior response to you, because I addressed this as well. I don’t favor “hate crimes” laws in any circumstance for any group. I am in favor of an outright repeal of the law and am certainly opposed to adding still more groups to what is fundamentally bad policy — morally, ethically, and not the least, Constitutionally.
I’ve made these points earlier in my argument — if you’d bother to read my argument rather than emoting and clumsily attempting to create oblique contentions of homophobia and self-hatred, perhaps you’d have refrained from further embarrassment that comes from the obvious fact that you didn’t read past a sentence or two of my prior posts.
posted by ETJB on
I am pretty sure that the USSC has upheld hate crime laws.
If a lesbian beats up a straight, white, male for being a straight, white, male then that would be a hate crime.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not likely; after all, people who criticize glbts who sexually harass their coworkers, discriminate against straight people, and demand sex from their subordinates are supposedly driven by “homophobia” and “sexism”.
posted by ardh on
Let’s get it through the Senate:
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org
posted by ardh on
Let’s get it through the Senate:
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org