Some recent mail:
From an email in response to YouTube's "It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)":
Okay, put that You Tube bit in the "don't watch it with a full bladder or you'll be sorry" category. Our marriage of nearly 27 years is going fine and we're looking forward to a sort of second honeymoon over our anniversary in September chartering a sailboat. This must be the fault of gays getting married, too.
Really, there are two guys down the street still rebuilding their house after the hurricane (and yes, gay guys have much better taste than straight guys), but other than admiring their three beautiful Weimaraners when they're out for a walk (and the work they've put into their house), I can't say that they're anymore a threat to our marriage than the man next door with his mail order bride from Thailand.
From me:
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY and HAPPY SAILING!
==========
Ron's Q. I'm basically trying to understand what the justification is for hate crimes are in the first place. Consider what happened to Matthew Shepard. Even without a hate crime statute, the perpetrators were eligible for what effectively was life in prison. What difference would passing this act have on that? Why is this needed?
My A. Hate Crimes are are crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group, usually groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate Crime legislation has been on the books since the 1960's and emerged out of the Civil Rights struggle. (See Jeff Martinhauk's blog for a reality check.)Laws currently state that crimes directed at a category of people in order to intimidate, oppress and marginalize the whole community are defined as Hate Crimes and entitled to Federal Law Enforcement support. Current laws provide federal prosecution for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin. The pending legislation would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list providing federal support for local law enforcement agencies.
It has the support of notable individuals and more than 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, Dick Thornburgh; National Sheriffs’ Association; International Association of Chiefs of Police; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Presbyterian Church; Episcopal Church; and the Parents Network on Disabilities.
PS - THANKS FOR ASKING!
========
10 comments:
Thanks for the "thanks for asking" response to Susan Russell's questions about hate crime legislation. But I think you did not answer her question. As I relate to her question, it was about the reason, or justification, behind hate crime legislation. You gave a desciption of the legislation, the the history of it and a list of those who recommend it. But I wonder about it still. Assault is assault and murder is murder, no? Should there really be a legal distinction between a victim who is beaten to death because someone wants his/her money and one who is beaten to death because of his race or sexual orientation? Does this legislation not imply that one crime is somehow more important than the other, or one victim more deserving of justice? Does hate crime legislation not prosecute someone for what they were thinking rather than what they did? Is there not a danger in this? Joan Mistretta
joan ... read it again. Susan's the one ANSWERING the question. And for the record, the legislation pending isn't a referendum on whether or not there should BE Hate Crime Legislation ... it's about whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the list that alread includes race, nationality, religion, etc.
Don't confuse the apples with the oranges.
Fred
Comment from another blog post worth repeating here ... thanks "Suzer":
In addition to Susan's response in an above post, another reason hate crimes bills are passed is often to get the appropriate assistance to law enforcement authorities. In the case of Brandon Teena (dramatized in the movie "Boys Don't Cry"), the local police did nothing to investigate or punish the men who raped Teena. Teena was transgender, and unfortunately the bias of the officers got in the way of doing their job.
Hate crimes legislation would mandate reporting of such crimes, and make more resources available to people like Brandon Teena, who was later murdered (along with two other people, I believe) by his attackers. These people might be alive today if local law enforcement had taken the correct action, instead of ignoring a crime because it had happened to a transgendered person.
I've heard the argument -- "but the police should be doing this for everyone, for every crime." That is true, but unfortunately is not the reality. We are all human, and our biases and prejudices sometimes get in the way of justice. Hate crimes legislation is a simple measure that adds a layer of protection that might be denied to those who might otherwise not receive equal treatment or justice when victimized because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
Dear Anonymous: Sorry I got the asker and sender wrong. I'll try to do better in the future. I did read the question again and found, again, that it starts with the words "I'm basically trying to understand what the justification is for hate crimes in the first place." I appreciate the other posting quoted about getting past the prejudices of law enforcement people but I'm afraid I still question the concept of crimes against some people being considered inherently worse than crimes against others. Unless the underlying prejudicial treatment of victims is addressed rather than "gotten around" by new laws. Is there anyone else who shares this concern? If I've made any other mistakes in this response please ignore them and help me with what I (perhaps wrongly) think is a matter of importance. Thanks, Joan Mistretta, Neophyte Blog Responder.
joan ... not to worry ... I'm still figuring how to sign in on this blogger thing.
Whether or not there should even BE a category of crimes labelled "hate crimes" has been a subject of debate since they went on the books in the 60's so it's a good question.
As a practical matter, an answer I would point to is the massive support this legislation has from law enforcement -- they know what they need to provide liberty and justice for all and this legislation is part of it.
As a thelogical matter, an answer I would point to is the one our Presiding Bishop gave: "The Episcopal Church has long been an advocate of combating hate in our society. No person or group of people should be the target of violence simply because of race, gender, religion, disability, national origin, sexuality or perceived sexual orientation."
Fred
A carjacker steals a car and kills the owner. A jilted lover kills her replacement in a lover’s triangle. A robber kills a shopkeeper during a botched burglary attempt.
All three are murder cases, motivated by jealousy, anger, greed, and/or passion.
But these crimes were not directed at a category of people in order to intimidate, oppress and marginalize an entire community. Sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race, color, immigration status and country of original were not factors in these three cases.
When, for example, the apartment of a gay couple is vandalized and anti-gay slogans are spray painted on the walls (12-21-06, Palm Springs, Florida-Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, Spring 2007), robbery is not the motive for the crime. Intimidation, oppression and marginalization are the motives. The entire gay community, not simply the couple victimized, is the target. It’s not a question of one crime being “worse” than another.
This is why the new law is needed. This is the distinction being made.
The number of hate groups is rising in America. The Southern Poverty Law Center compiled a list of 844 active hate groups and 566 hate-based web sites in 2006. Categories included 165 KKK chapters, including one in nearby San Luis Obispo, CA), 191 neo-Nazi, 110 White Nationalist, 78 racist skinhead, 37 Christian Identity, 102 neo-Confederate, 88 Black Separatist, 6 anti-gay, 12 anti-immigrant, 5 Holocaust Denial, and 14 Racist Music sites, among others.
The fact is that these groups do more than just “think” about hatred in an abstract sense. They often act out that hatred and advocate that others take up their cause and do the same. It should not be necessary to belong to one of the marginalized groups to understand the affects of this hatred on our society. 6,000-10,000 hate crimes are reported to the FBI each year. The SPLC quotes a 2005 government report that estimates the actual number at 191,000. It is hard for me to see how legislation designed to facilitate the prosecution of these crimes can be considered controversial by anyone.
And, contrary to the spin of various Christian “family values” groups, the free speech and religious freedom rights to condemn LGBTs from the pulpit would in no way be affected by the new hate-crime law. One can only wonder how the same folks who want the Ten Commandments displayed in all public buildings can, in the name of religion, speak such false witness against others.
Exactly. hate crimes are intended to victimize a whole group, not just the victim.
Meanwhile, here's an example of a recent hate crime:
A Texas man charged in the slaying of Southwest Airlines flight attendant Kenneth Cummings Jr. said from jail that he was doing God's work when he went looking in Houston gay bars for a gay man to kill.
"Sexual perversion" is the "worst sin," Terry Mark Mangum told reporters July 21 from the Brazoria County jail where he awaits trial, explaining that he believed "with all my heart that I was doing the right thing" when he stabbed Cummings in the head with a six-inch knife.
IT
In a perfect world, there would be no need for hate crimes legislation. I understand the arguments against hate crimes legislation in general, and think the argument has some merit only if applied to ALL hate crimes legislation, not just to adding sexual orientation as a category. Not sure I agree with the argument, but I can see the merit in it. However, we don't live in a perfect world. :/
One of the concerns I've seen expressed (almost to the point of the ridiculous) is that pastors who believe homosexuality is sin will be stifled in the pulpit. Let me make clear -- hate crimes protection does not involve what could be considered hate speech. Hate speech is still protected by the 1st Amendment. This is why Fred Phelps and the Ku Klux Klan still have the right to preach the hatred they do. Only in circumstances of inciting public riot is the curbing of hate speech generally accepted by courts.
This legislation will protect a class of persons in the case of violent crimes that can be proven to have been perpetrated on the basis of hatred of the victim's sexual orientation. In their effort to destroy any protection for or recognition of GLBT people, many religious conservatives have claimed this bill infringes on their religion and right to believe that GLBT people are sinful. It does no such thing. Everyone is still entitled to hold their beliefs, no matter how heinous they seem to those on the other side (meaning whatever "side" you're coming from). It is violent crime based on those beliefs (which, I think, we can all agree is a bad thing) which is being redressed with this bill.
Society passes laws for several reasons. One is of course to provide a penalty for bad conduct. That is what we mostly think about given the way TV makes the law look to us. But another, entirerly valid one is to express values.
So, I rather doubt the laws that prohibit rape within marrige discourage the evil fools who do such things. And prosecutions are rare. But, the State is on record. And confronted by a victim, the prosecutor and the police know that. Society speaks through its laws. We do not accept such conduct.
So too, hate crimes. No, we cannot execute a murderer twice (I should prefer we did not at all.) No we cannot require a killer to serve two lifetimes. But we can say, as a society that hate crimes are wrong. That the viciousness a Mathew Shepard experienced is intolerable.
One of the standards used in the McNaughten rule to determine if a person is not guilt by reason of insanity is that they did not consider what they did to be wrong, and did not know that society considered it to be wrong. If we do not tell them, how will they know?
My son and daugh-in-law are raising two kids. They have told big sister that some things are not OK. If she does those things, she gets corner time. If she does something else, they may say 'never again' but she is not standing in the corner. She has to know, they as parents have to tell her. That is as good a reason for hate crime laws as I can give.
FWIW
jimB
Ah, I get it! Thanks. The two arguments that made me understand were 1) hate crimes are directed against others besides the individual victim and 2) society expresses its values through its laws. I'm a new supporter of hate crime laws.
Two things that were not so helpful were 1)explanations which seemed to assume that because someone questions a particular TECHNIQUE in addressing a problem (such as violence against gays) that the questioner does not appreciate the seriousness of the problem itself. I run into this assumption in other areas of concern to me such as what techniques may, or may not, be most heolpful in addressing terrorism. Disagreement with a particular method does not imply lack of concern for the problem.
Also, Fred, my friend (and I say this, I hope, with a touch of humor) -- I get cold shivers when I read that we should trust law enforcement because "they know what they need to provide liberty and justice for all." Oh dear. Where do you think the term "police state" came from?
Thanks again to all who responded to my concern. One does not learn if one does not question. Love this blog, incidentally. Joan
Post a Comment