RSS Feed MenuThe Senate has just enacted the Matthew Sheppard Act, adding homosexuals to the list of groups covered by federal hate crimes laws.
Like most conservatives, I flinch from hate crimes laws in general. But if we do have them – and we do – it’s hard to see the justification for omitting homosexuals for their coverage. As the FBI’s numbers show, the US experiences more than 10 times as many anti-gay hate crimes as anti-Islamic hate crimes.
And if you consider violent crimes, gays face attacks even more out of proportion to their numbers.
In all 2007, there were 33 bias-motivated violent crimes against Muslims, and 682 against homosexuals and bisexuals.
Hard to see the justification for the care and concern for the rarely targeted category and the law’s disregard of the people actually in danger.
sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:34 am
kevin-b: The point is that hate crimes are not just about the individual victim. They target that victim as a member of a group.
There are many crimes that target a victim so as to terrorize a group.
Al Capone terrorized those businesses that refused to pay protection money when he asked them to, so as to terrorize all businessmen into dealing with him.
The reason why terrorists keep targeting airliners, is to terrorize passengers into being afraid to fly.
These are both forms of extortion.
The problem with hate crimes legislation is that they are trying to provide special protection for ethnic groups.
If you wanted to pass a law saying that a criminal who targets a victim with the idea of terrorizing a larger group should get a worse sentence, I would agree. That would include terrorists and organized crime figures who attempt extortion.
But the moment you specify that this should apply only to ethnic groups is where I part company.
MI-GOPer // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm
sinz54 says “The reason why terrorists keep targeting airliners, is to terrorize passengers into being afraid to fly.”
Not to get off target, sinz54, but I think this statement is another example of you not thinking clearly before posting.
Terrorists hit airliners because they are high-value media targets. It brings their “cause” into immediate focus by the world. It demonstrates that no one, no govt, no matter how invincable they may project to the world, is beyond the avenging wrath of a mighty cause.
The last dozen terrorist incidents weren’t directed toward depressing tourism. Gheesh.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Sinz wrote: “The problem with hate crimes legislation is that they are trying to provide special protection for ethnic groups.”
Wrong. Hate crime legislation does not protect specific ethnic groups. Instead, the legislation essentially imposes a stiffer penalty on criminals who attack victims because of their race. Hate crime victims have been white as well as minority.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf
Willems // Oct 24, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Sounds like a sin tax. Add 7% to the price of gay bashing and lower the demand curve. Hmmm. And What about the white guy who goes to the corner store to get a quart of milk and instead gets his head kicked in by a bunch of hang-about punks?
Kevin B // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:21 am
What about the white guy who goes to the corner store to get a quart of milk and instead gets his head kicked in by a bunch of hang-about punks?
If he’s attacked for being white (otherwise, why did you mention that?) then it should qualify as a hate crime.
If he’s gay (which you didn’t mention), but the punks didn’t know or care about that, then it isn’t a hate crime.
If he’s straight, but the punks attacked him because they thought he was gay, then it is a hate crime.
Willems // Oct 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Anytime someone gets their head kicked in it is a hate crime. Anytime you calibrate the penalty according a particular demographic you end up with unequal justice. Just my opinion and I know nothing about law.
Kevin B // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:38 pm
In a hate crime, the hate is for the group to which the victim belongs.
Do you feel the same way about terrorism as you do about hate crimes? After all, victims of terrorism simply victims of a crime. Why do we gather year after year to read their names aloud? The white guy with his head bashed in doesn’t get that special treatment?
Terrorism carries different penalties than other crimes. Crimes committed with a gun carry different penalties. Often, it’s not the condition of the victim, but the motives of the criminal that determine the punishment.
sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm
kevin-b: After all, victims of terrorism simply victims of a crime.
No.
Osama bin Laden certainly does not think of himself as a common criminal.
The purpose of 9-11 wasn’t to kill a few thousand Americans, but to terrorize all the American people.
And Osama bin Laden’s hatred of American “infidels” is a matter of public record.
How is that any different from what you call a “hate crime”?
Kevin B // Oct 25, 2009 at 7:25 pm
sinz54:
How is that any different from what you call a “hate crime”?
I was writing rhetorically, trying to make the same point in a backwards way that you just made in a much more straightforward way.
To be clear: I think terrorism and hate crimes are very similar, and they each require special treatment in terms of prevention, investigation, and, for lack of a better term, healing.
I think I would include assassination in that group as well.
MSheridan // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:42 pm
This liberal does not believe that defining certain crimes as hate crimes is a good idea, except in far more narrow and specified circumstances than currently apply. In fact, I think the term “hate crime” itself is overbroad and unfortunate. I don’t see hatred stemming from prejudice in the criminals’ minds as ever being enough in itself to warrant special treatment, even when that prejudice is clearly the motivating factor for the crimes committed and I don’t see crimes committed solely for that reason as more worthy of punishment than crimes of greed or revenge or jealousy. The acts are criminal regardless.
The only crimes I believe should be counted as hate crimes are those which are clearly meant to intimidate a larger community, e.g. lynchings or burning crosses on lawns or spray-painting swastikas on homes or synagogues. In those instances, simple murder or vandalism or trespassing charges are clearly not sufficient, as those crimes do not possess the component of threat inherent to such activities.
In fact, if crimes like these were to be separated into a special category, I think it would be better named “threat crimes.” Alternatively, “public intimidation” could be added as an enhancement to certain offenses, but it would be a much narrower category than hate crimes, as intent would only come into the equation to the extent that it could be shown a criminal act was intended to intimidate, not that the crime in question was committed because of prejudice or bigotry.
In this, I realize I am closer to conservatives than to the liberal mainstream (although there are other liberals uncomfortable with hate crime legislation), but anyone who is always in step with any group of people is probably not thinking very hard.