On October 22,2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd, Jr. Act making crimes committed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability prosecutable as a federal offense, allowing federal investigators to intervene. Technically, it was only a re-write of a previous “hate crimes” law enacted in 1969 that only protected the first three categories on that list and then only if those people were trying to vote or attend school. With that law, though, one was still able to systematically harass minorities if they weren’t voting, or homosexuals, no matter what they were doing, so long as local law enforcement was willing to look the other way.
Considering that the listed categories, with the exception of religion, are generally things that people have no control over, it seems common sense to give some added protection. Oklahoma senator Steve Russell disagrees.
The opposition that has spurred this Oklahoma legislator to suggest state action to shield from compliance with the act, actually starts out reasonably. He says:
The federal government should not be creating a special class of people, and that is just what they did when they passed and signed this bill. All crimes against another person have some level of hate in them, and people can be assured that our laws that protect people against crimes such as murder are sufficient to protect everyone.
It is easy to debate with–for instance, robbery isn’t typically motivated by hate and claiming that the government created a “special class” of people is certainly debatable when one considers that people in this class already seem to be targeted–but he certainly has valid points. Then he kept talking.
Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.
Oh no he didn’t! He dropped the “sex with dead people” hammer. Now, I’m convinced his crusade is just. Because, if you cannot beat the crap out of someone with that disorder, whom can you assault without repercussions? Tell me!
Russell, and those rushing to support his cause, also like to make this a religious issue. Sally Kern’s husband, the Reverend Steve Kern, has this to say about “hate crimes” legislation: “The goal of hate crimes legislation is to silence speech determined to be opposed to the homosexual lifestyle.”
And if that were true, and I were Steve Kern spouting hate toward gay people from the pulpit, I would be concerned. Except, the thing about the legislation is that it actually protects him just as much as it protects his wife’s transgendered opponent for her house seat. Say that the Reverend Kern were to be dragged from the back of Saab covered with rainbow stickers in retaliation for him giving a sermon about an obscure line in Leviticus saying that homosexuals are no better than Philistine heathens. His, assault would be covered by the Matthew Shepard Act due to his persecution for religious views.
But, I don’t want Reverend Kern protected, because that would mean I couldn’t beat up corpse f’ers.
let’s all be equal, OK? might as well try that for a bit…
Would it be a hate crime to assault that smug little smirk right off Steve Russell’s face?
it doesn’t matter ‘why’ someone breaks the law, whether it was out of hate, spite, love, lust, ignorance, or anything else. ‘intent’ matters, but why someone intended to do something or not do something doesn’t matter at all.
that being said, this was not a wise statement on his behalf. i understand why they are passing it, and i understand why it’s stupid to pass such acts, but i don’t understand the opposition to it.
i also find it interesting that ‘political affiliation’ is not in the list of things that aren’t ok.
and it’s all recursive. if a person A has a certain religious view, and he/she commits an illegal act targeted against person B, and that act was based upon a religious belief, wouldn’t it be breaking the same law to escalate the level of the crime because of person A’s religious belief? i’m willing to bet a lot of hate crime is rooted in religious beliefs, and i would think that labeling such crime as ‘worse’ or ‘more punishable’ would be a bit hypocritical. it’s kind of a catch 22. someone, somewhere, will use that same argument as a defense in their case.
all jokes aside, I did agree with the first paragraph in some extent.
If we are truly after equality, whether someone is murdered or beaten due to their race or religion, instead of just because the attacker is evil, do we have to qualify or justify it any differently? Why can’t we just says “murder” and “assault”? Is the punishment for hate crime worse than that of regular crime? if so, why? Does wagging our finger at the offender and calling them a bigot or homophobe really make them feel any more remorse than a prison sentence?
I just wonder if “hate crime” now involves speech? I know certain speech, like threats, isn’t free speech, but I don’t want to see people go to prison for name calling. If that’s the case, I’m hunting down my 7th grade bully and pressing charges for calling me fat.
TravisB, the “hate crimes” legislation that was signed into law does not criminalize anyone’s speech. The legislation merely provides prosecutors an additional tool to fight criminals whose motivation for their crime is to terrorize a targeted population of individuals. No one can be prosecuted merely for “name-calling.” However, if an individual sees a person on the street that he believes to be a Southern Baptist, for example, and proceeds to assault and batter this person, who has personally not done anything to our attacker, and leaves a note by the body that he won’t stand for having any Southern Baptists in his neighborhood, then our attacker might be subject to tougher penalties on account of his motivation for committing the crime. Hate crimes legislation is society’s way of setting a standard that we won’t tolerate hate-motivated, terrorizing of individuals based merely on some constitutionally protected status of that individual.
How about necromancy? If that’s banned too, then Sally Kern will be safe for life. I don’t like thinking about that world…
To defend the legislation, I’d just point out that some jurisdictions still view homosexuality as a crime worse than assault that just isn’t on the legal books. So, having the option to prosecute the person federally and have federal law enforcement involved gives more hope of justice being served.
Motive matters.
Murder for profit is considered to be more heinous than murder in the heat of passion. And, as such, it attaches a special circumstance that allows for a more severe penalty.
Murder carries a more severe penalty than manslaughter, even though both crimes result in the taking of the life of another through a willful act.
Being involved in a robeery that leads to a death carries a more severe penalty than robbery alone, even if you are outside driving the getaway car.
Motive matters. And hate crime legislation says willful acts of violence motivated by specific hatred of aperson because of their class attaches special circumstances.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with the hate crimes, but this is how hate crimes fit neatly into the world of crime and punishment.
The concept that hate crimes legislation is unneccessary seems to make sense at first glance. What people don’t understand is that hate crimes legislation is intended to send a message to people who think their f’ed up beliefs excuse their criminal behavior. By standing up as a society and saying it is abhorrent to target people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it makes it clear that such acts will be punished and punished severely.
If the nation had taken such a stance in the 1960s, maybe some southern gentlemen would have had a harder time getting away with crimes against folks who had a darker pignment to their skin than some thought acceptable.
The truth is, gays need a higher level of protection precisely because people like Russell and Kern keep comparing them to pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Making such statements de-humanizes an entire class of people and sends the message the to moron masses that it’s OK if you rough them up a bit because they are sinners anyway.
Its amazing to me that many of you people who cry for an environment of tolerance and acceptance just as freely and easily cry for justice and revenge against those that aren’t tolerant. Man up and support the gays and battle for their rights. For a group of people who choose to be accepting of everyones beliefs, you choose a really bad way of displaying it towards those whose views differ from yours.
Here’s the fun thing about hate crimes: A transgendered, transexual person calls you a hetero fuck who ought to be beat to death, that’s assault with special circumstances, because you were singled out for being heterosexual.
Or, a crazed northside developer runs over Mark Shannon in a Mercedes for what Shannon said on the radio about MAPS, its a hate crime (politically motivated).
It is sort of like how the American Civil Liberties Union is always hiring lawyers for Nazis and Ku Kluxers . . . welcome to the perverse logic of the world of rights.
Hmmm, wonder why he went for necrophilia instead of pedophilia? Freudian slip?
Wait… Does this legislation cover trichotilomania or can kick the crap out of Sally Kern’s hair-eating shins?!?
russell looks like he’s no stranger to the sausage…