Recently, there have been a flurry of letters to the Editor (The Spectrum, Deseret News) complaining about Congressman Jim Matheson's recent support of Hate Crimes legislation.It *really* bugs me when people don't pay attention. Putting aside that support of hate crimes legislation is the *right* thing to do (and I'll talk about that in a minute), the people who are so inflamed by his vote aren't even paying attention to what the legislation says.
So, I asked Matheson's people about it. The legislation in question only does one thing: it authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to award grants to local, state and Indian law enforcement agencies to help defray the costs of upholding the law, and authorizes the US Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial or other assistance upon request from state, local, or tribal officials who are dealing with a hate crime. Period. I repeat: It provides technical, forensic, prosecutorial or other assistance upon request from state, local or tribal officials.
Big deal. This legislation imposes nothing on the states, and doesn't give anybody anything extra.
And yet, the letters continue. By the tone of these letters, it is apparent to me why hate crimes legislation is even necessary in the first place.
But isn't it somewhat ironic that when the Rev. Al Sharpton makes bigoted statements against Mitt Romney, people are outraged, calling his comments “wrong and un-American.” But when we talk about hate crimes legislation, singling out other Americans who are different in other ways is somehow OK.
For the record, I'm proud of my Congressman for supporting what is right. We should all take bold stands and is speak out against hate. Always.
And also for the record, Cannon and Bishop voted against the legislation (I guess they don't think local organizations deserve technical support or help in defraying costs. I'm gonna remember that the next time they vote for something that does just that. )
4 comments:
Emily,
In order to have a robust discussion on any topic whether it be the Hate Crimes Bill or School Vouchers, we need to employ a common frame of reference. To that end I must point out that you or Matheson's "people" are mistaken.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 does expand the definition of hate crimes. To quote Marty Lederman, former Attorney Advisor in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002 - "Under current federal law, violent crimes are subject to federal penalty if they are (i) motivated by the race, religion, color or national origin of the victim and (ii) the victim was engaged in a "federally protected activity," such as voting.
The central provision of the new Act (section 7(a)) would expand that law in two respects, by creating two distinct new federal crimes denominated "hate crime acts."
First, new section 249(a)(1) of title 18 would eliminate the current requirement that the victim be engaged in federally protected activity. It would simply criminalize willfully causing bodily injury because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of the victim.
Second, new section 249(a)(2) would, in turn, expand the current prohibition to cover violent crime motivated by other characteristics of the victim: It would criminalize willfully causing bodily injury because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim under specified circumstances."
I am a member of a minority and have always been against hate crime legislation. It's inconceivable to me that someone should face a stiffer penalty for stabbing me because they didn't like my brown skin versus just not liking me as a person.
There is no irony in being outraged by someone's bigoted remarks and yet not wanting criminal penalties to be enhanced because of them. That's because there is little logic to punish someone more severely for committing an illegal act because of a legally protected motivation.
The government shouldn't be in the business of punishing people for why they do things. Would you be in favor of enhancing penalties based on ideology, even liberal ideology? When people vandalize commercial properties in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, should they face stiffer penalties than a group of kids just being vandals? Of course not.
Thought policing is dangerous.
Yes, it does expand existing law.
We have had a hate crimes law in the United States since 1969. The new legislation simply takes away the requirement that a person has to be engaged in "Voting" to be a victim of a hate crime, and adds more groups for protection under the law.
In the old scenario, there were already protections extended to victims of crimes motivated by hate (race, color, religion, or national origin.) But you could only be prosecuted for a hate crime if you beat someone up while they were voting. I'm sorry but that's a really funny requirement... if you think about it.
Humor aside, in my opinion it is a good thing that they updated the law, and that they added the *new* provision to give support to local law enforcement agencies who need to prosecute a crime as one that is motivated by hate.
I maintain ... a hate crime is not only an attack on one's physical self, but is also an attack on one's very identity. Hate crimes are designed to send messages to communities. This is not a law about "punishing thoughts" - this law clearly states that specifically provides that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
If we, as a society, want to demonstrate that bigotry and race-hatred are not acceptable norms, we do so through this kind of statute.
Emily,
You said - "If we, as a society, want to demonstrate that bigotry and race-hatred are not acceptable norms, we do so through this kind of statute."
Here lies the problem with your philosophy; society and government are not and should not be synonymous. Our society is too vast and too diverse to use constitutionally protected acts (It’s still legal to hate people because they’re brown, black, jewish, etc.) as aggravating factors for illegal acts.
Let’s run a little thought experiment here.
Society as a whole disapproves of gay marriage. That’s a fact. Even the most recent polls show that 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage.
Being gay is legal – even constitutionally protected these days – and so is marriage. However, we allow being gay as an aggravating factor towards marriage and therefore disallow it.
Your logic, almost verbatim, is applied by the religious right as a reason to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution.
Should government demonstrate that gay marriage or homosexuality in general is not an acceptable norm? If you ask many members of society they would certainly agree that government should discourage such thoughts.
I reassert my primary argument against hate crimes; there is little logic to punish someone more severely for committing an illegal act because of a legally protected motivation.
steve:
Thank you for the primer on the expansion of hate crimes penalties that has recently passed the House...I was wondering what the specifics were, so I thank you for providing that information.
I must disagree with you, however, when you say, "[t]he government shouldn't be in the business of punishing people for why they do things." The government, in fact, DOES punish people for why they do things. Mens rea, or criminal intent, is a basic element in every criminal statute. Juries are tasked with reading the minds of those on trial to determine what the intent of the alleged perpetrator was in committing the alleged crime. The levels range from strict liability (or no intent required), to neglect, to recklessness, to knowledge, to intent.
However, I'll not bore you with the details about those levels because I suspect that what you really intended to say was that the government should not be in the business of punishing people for what they think when those thoughts are protected under the Constitution as freedom of speech; this is a distinction with a difference.
To that point, though, I still think you have it wrong there too. First, I would argue that the hate in hate crimes is not a thought or thoughts, but rather speech/thought manifested in conduct. The Supreme Court jurisprudence here is clear, freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of speech. The obvious one, "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" underscores the notion that your right to swing your fist (or hate minorities/burn crosses) ends where my nose (or lawn) begins. So I would argue that the government is punishing illegal, unprotected speech/conduct and not punishing legal thoughts; meaning, the government is punishing the conduct of assault, or trespass, or vandalism, etc.
Which leads me to the next point, which is that you are absolutely correct when you state that the government is enhancing the penalty. However, you seem to vacilate in recognizing that the law is simply a penalty enhancement; when you say the government should not punish people for their legal thoughts, I think what you meant to say is that the government should not CONVICT people for having legal thoughts, even if it is motive for a crime. But because you fail to make that distinction too, your argument does not hold weight once again.
Hate crimes legislation is codifying a penalty enhancement tool for judges; sometimes the statute provides the enhancement tool as obligatory and other statutes provide for a discretionary use of the enhancement by judges (Utah is in the latter). Anyone familiar with criminal law would know that all kinds of criteria are used as mitigating and aggravating factors in the penalty (punishment) phase of trial. Community service, aspects of a defendant's character, background or the circumstances of the
offense, etc are all codified statutory factors that would tend to mitigate (or lower) the punishment for the crime. Listing factors that demonstrate discriminatory intent as an aggravating factor in the penalty phase is actually quite normal when considering that "whether the crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disorder" is a mitigating factor. Hate crimes merely provides the aggravating yang to that mitigating yin in the state of mind category.
In the end, Steve, I think you are absolutely correct about one thing: this is a symbolic gesture. Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse). While I believe the penalty enhancement tool actually does have an on-the-ground effect, I am nonetheless persuaded that hate crimes legislation is more about sending a message than deterring or perhaps even punishing crime.
The difference between you and I, Steve, is that I think this is a valid exercise in symbolism. To codify in statute that we, as a society, do not tolerate discrimination. We make this statement in at least thousands of state and federal statutes in various contexts. Iterating our intolerance for hate in the criminal context is no different, and perhaps more weighty considering the conduct at issue here (assualt, vandalism, murder, rape, etc).
I think I will go have some apple pie now.
Post a Comment