Today the Senate approved a measure to extend federal protections to those who are victims of crimes motivated by their gender or sexual orientation. The measure passed 68-29 in the Senate, and already passed in the House by a vote of 281 to 146. President Obama has indicated his support of the measure. Hate crime laws have traditionally been a favorite punching bag of not just conservatives, but even some moderates and liberals in an effort to show they are "independent minded." I don't think these laws represent some sort of great leap forward in civil rights, but I do believe they are good laws and most of the ire directed at them doesn't make much sense.
The most common argument I hear from those who oppose these laws is also the weakest argument: these laws are "criminalizing thought." To make this argument you would have to be under the impression that our criminal codes do not take thought into account. If you're not sure about this...I'll just let you know now that they do...quite frequently. We already distinguish levels of homicide by thought, or more specifically, intent. Our criminal justice system takes into account whether you kill someone intentionally or accidentally, and your punishment will be less if you did it by accident. Basically the government is "criminalizing" your desire to kill your wife. Damn fascist thought police! Hate crime statutes do indeed take thought into account, but so does the rest of the criminal law.
Another common argument is that the crimes addressed by hate crimes statutes are already illegal. That is true, but what these statutes do is allow the federal government to conduct an investigation if local authorities are falling short. This is necessary because crimes committed against unpopular minorities have a way of being taken less seriously by local authorities in some communities. In fact, sometimes the local authorities are the ones committing the crimes. I would like to believe in most cases law enforcement officials are mature men and women who put their particular beliefs aside to pursue justice, but I would like some other recourse just in case.
The third argument I've heard often is that this constitutes "special rights" for minorities. I can understand why some would have that impression since groups like the NAACP and HRC have fought so hard for hate crimes laws, but I don't really see it that way. To me, these laws constitute more of a sad acknowledgement of reality than a great civil rights victory. Sure, the feds may get involved, but I'll be dead or in the hospital. I'd rather live in a country where this sort of thing didn't happen much.
Although most of the arguments against these laws don't pass muster with me, I cannot agree with one rationale often cited in their favor. I can't imagine that these laws do much to discourage hate crimes. If someone has made up their mind to pistol whip a man because he came onto him, I don't think state vs. federal crime is going to enter into his mind. I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent, and I certainly don't think this statute will be. When someone has crossed that line, he isn't thinking about the consequences.
There are other arguments for and against, but ultimately I think the Senate did a good thing today.
"I would like to believe in most cases law enforcement officials are mature men and women..."
ReplyDeleteWe would all like to think that, but I think we know what is actually true.
So true. This reminds me of that young guy who killed himself - David Ritcheson - after he was violently beaten. And I agree about hate crimes not being deterrents. People will continue to hate, and they will continue to act out. Aside from educating people, the best we can do is ensure that they are properly punished. MLK said it best: It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
ReplyDeleteBravo! Well-stated and succinct defense of hate crimes legislation. And they can't even argue that adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes provision is provising "special rights." It's pretty hard to find someone out there who doesn't have a sexual orientation. Of course the same thing goes with race, religion, gender, etc. No one is excluded from those catagories.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that my captcha for my last comment was "prics."
ReplyDelete