Hate Crimes Bill Needs Your Support
We're closer than ever to passing a federal hate crimes law that includes and protects all Americans.
This legislation would help combat hate crimes across America by updating the current laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity while providing new resources and tools to assist local law enforcement in prosecuting all hate crimes.
Last week, Senator Kennedy added it as an amendment to the Department of Defense reauthorization currently being debated before the U.S. Senate. A floor vote could come at any time (S. 1105).
Please call your senators right now and demand they vote in support of the Hate Crimes bill.
Sen. Wayne Allard
(202) 224-5941
Sen. Ken Salazar
(202) 224-5852
posted by kate @ 9:27 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? Is it really providing inclusion and protection for all Americans?
First, one of the provisions would give federal authorities far broader powers to take up "investigation" of any crime possibly containing a bias crime. I don't like it when the government crams PATRIOT down my throat so I also don't like it when the Federal government expands its role in the investigation of local crime. The broadening of federal powers is rarely a good thing and I fail to see why they are any better at it than local police officers might be. If the charge is that local police officers themselves suffer from bias, then that's a problem that needs to be corrected on a local level and current laws need to be enforced fairly, not simply ignore the problem in favor of a federal remedy. Also, where's the guarantee that federal officers won't exhibit the same sort of bias?
Second, the funding is laughable. According to the FBI, in 2004, there were approximately 7,649 crimes with a bias motivation. Using that number, that means the funding for this "expansion" equals about $1,307 per case. Lady Justice doesn't even get out of bed for that kind of money anymore. Just like No Child Left Behind and, indeed, PATRIOT, if you're going to go to the trouble to pass bad legislation, at least make sure it's adequately funded so that when it fails miserably, you know it's because the idea was bad, not because it just didn't have enough money to work.
Third, in order for this law to be good, it needs to protect all potential victims of a bias crime equally and fairly. Yet, there is no provision for crimes against individuals based on political affiliation, job or homelessness. These are just three categories where bias crimes might be shown, but there's no agitation or provision for them.
Furthermore, where's the assurance that all crimes with bias affiliation will be prosecuted as such? Crimes with a potential bias component, when committed against the member of a majority, tend to not be seen or prosecuted as such.
If the argument is that local justice officials are incapable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute certain types of crime due to personal bias, then wouldn't it make more sense to fix those personal biases rather than pass another legal layer that expands the power of the federal government while failing to provide sufficient funding for that expansion to be effective and can be just as readily ignored as laws already on the books? If that's not the argument, then the inescapable conclusion seems to be that some segments of the population have a perceived right to greater protection under the law which strikes at the very core principles of our legal system.
Bias crime law is well intention, but we all know what lines the path to hell. This legislation specifically is flawed in its funding and in its expansion of federal power outside of federal scope. To remove the prerequisite of individuals being involved in a federally-protected activity in order for a possible bias crime to receive federal attention removes any possible reason the federal government should have for getting involved.
Nothing like making people's thoughts a crime.
If someone kills someone else on purpose, and the reason was because of the person's race, sex, etc..., this doesn't make the person any less dead or the murderer any more wrong. This appears to be another "touchy-feel good" law, and goodness knows we've got enough of those already.
Again, it depends on what kind of country you want to live in.
Motivation for crime is important to some people - that's one of the reasons we have different degrees for murder. If someone's intent is fueled by bigotry, we call it a more heinous crime because some of us believe that bigotry makes it worse. As a society, we are saying that those kinds of beliefs are unacceptable and, if someone acts on such hatred, he or she will be punished for the crime as well as the hatred behind it.
Remove such criminal bigots from society. I'm okay with that. And there's nothing touchy or feel good about it.
I am in total agreement with rw. Hate crime laws simply punish someone a little more for what they were thinking, regardless of the crime. Do we need "thought crime" laws? No, and that is precisely what this is.
A prosecutor should simply see the motivation for a crime and prosecute accordingly. For instance, "assault" driven by racial hatred becomes "aggravated assault". The law can already handle this, if it is executed properly. We don't need another law, we just need to prosecute our current ones more effectively.
>>Remove such criminal bigots from society.<<
Ah, but what is a criminal bigot?
This is how these things progress:
You pass a law saying that if a someone commits a crime against someone because of some type of bias (race, sex, etc...) towards that person (thought crime) then the penality of the crime is enhanced. But for the people who desire this type of legislation, what's currently on the books is never enough.
Next thing is to have the law expanded, usually by an overreaching judge via a court rendering, to include people who are members of organizations that "preach hate." Note I didn't say they acted on their hatred, just that they were members of a group. That'll start with the KKK type organizations, no one will get too upset with those people getting arrested.
Once that becomes commonplace and "acceptable", then they go after groups or individuals who they claim are teaching hate. For instance, many religious groups teach that homosexuality is immoral. They don't act out violence against those who are homosexuals, but they teach that it's a sin. But even those teaching and/or believing that will be targeted as "promoters of hate," arrested, and jailed.
Then on to the next PC agenda.
Now, you may read this and say "No way! That's not the purpose of this, it'll never go that far." But look at even the history of this country. How many things are considered "acceptable" by people today that 100 years ago people would have never have considered to be OK in polite society?
not to be picky about wording, but motive or motivation isn't what determines the degree that is charged. while it may present nicely on TV and certainly plays well to a jury, you don't (always) need a motive to prove a crime. (as a caveat, each state has its own criminal code, so i'm not sure if there's a state out there that requires motive in order prove a criminal act)
what you do need, and what determines the degree charged, are such things as deliberate premeditation and malice aforethought. in MA, to be charged with first degree murder, you need both (under one of three statutory definitions).
to be charged with second degree murder, only malice aforethought needs to be proven. the prosecutor is not required to show that there was an intent to kill, so long as there is intent to injure without legal justification.
is it a heinous crime when one party murders another merely because the victim was gay/transgender? absolutely.
but, is it more heinous (or, perhaps the better question, should it be treated differently) than a first degree felony murder where the victim is kidnapped and then killed?
Post a Comment
<< Home