Be warned: This post is long. You can skip the middle section (you'll see) and even this first section. Please read the last section because it is the most important.
Wow, thank you so much for the response on my last post. I agree with what you all said. I'm going to create a list of my favorite posts, and I think I'm going to make that one of my favorites just because of the comment response. Every comment was long, thought out, and well written. Thanks you guys!
Just some things. J, I am not actually very tall. I am exactly average height for my age. Also, I am not the kind of spirit that would ever provoke anyone or pick a fight. Also, your suggestions could easily provoke “gay panic,” which is when a straight person freaks out because a gay guy hits on him and then the straight guy usually resorts to violence. This is often used as a defense in hate crimes cases.
It also has roots in the stereotype that gay men are just waiting to prey on all straight men, and I do not want to perpetuate that. Isn't it interesting how I feel limited by the stereotypes? I don't want to perpetuate them, so I strive not to fit into them.
Back to hate crimes, I want to talk about the Matthew Shepard Act. The Matthew Shepard Act is named for a gay student who was tortured and murdered in 1998 in Wyoming. You can read more about Matthew Shepard here, but right now, I want to talk about the Matthew Shepard Act.
Here is a history of the bill. If you already know about it, you can skip this part:
The Matthew Shepard Act adds to the 1969 Federal Hate Crime Law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It also adjusted the Federal Hate Crime Law in other ways, but most people focused on the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the groups protected under the Hate Crime Law.
It was first introduced in 2001 but never made it past the House Subcommittee on Crime. It was re-introduced every 2 years until 2007 and never made it past this subcommittee.
In March of 2007, it finally passed the committees and made it to the floor of the House. It passed the House and then went to the Senate, where it was attached as an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill. The amendment passed, but was ultimately dropped after opposition from antiwar Democrats, conservative groups, and President Bush, who threatened a veto. I believe that 2007 is when the Democrats captured the House, which probably explains why the bill finally made it to the floor.
In 2009, the bill was reintroduced and passed the House with support of only 18 Republicans and passed the Senate in the form of an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill with support from 5 Republicans.
The bill now has to go into committee to find a compromise between the House version and Senate version (they are the same thing, but are attached to different bills) before it will reach Obama's desk.
Here ends the history of the bill and begins the analysis of this evidence.
Frankly, I don't understand why people would vote against this bill. If understanding homophobia is difficult, than it is damn near impossible to understand why members of the Congress of the United States of America would be in opposition to a bill that protects citizens of this country.
Wikipedia lists arguments made against the bill, and I will go through them here:
1) The bill will harm free speech.
This is an utterly absurd claim because there is a clause in the bill that reads “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"
Furthermore, has the hate-crimes bill that protects people from crimes motiviated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin limited free speech? No it hasn't. The people that make this claim are worried that they will no longer be able to preach about the evils of homosexuality. Some of them also want to preach violence against homosexuals. While it is terrible to preach violence against anyone, these people do have the right to freedom of speech, and this bill will do nothing to impede that. This bill will only punish people who act on those violent words.
2) The bill was "trojan horsed" in the form of the Senate Defense Authorization Bill.
This was an argument that I saw on FOX News from time to time. While it is a valid argument against the procedure of passing the bill, it is not an argument against the content of the bill. The only reason that the Senate did this was to hopefully gain more votes from Republicans by forcing them to vote in favor of Defense Authorization. Nevertheless, only 5 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.
3) The bill does not protect citizens equally and is not needed
This is perhaps the most valid argument. It is true that it does extend special protections to certain citizens; however, I would argue that the protections do not put the minority groups who are protected above other citizens. The only "protection" is the promise of harsher punishment if someone is attacked because he/she is a member of said minority group. While this literally does treat citizens differently, it does not elevate certain citizens above others.
I also disagree with the "this is not needed" argument. Hate crimes occur every day where LGBT people find themselves under attack merely because of their orientation/gender identity. This is a horrible thing, and the federal government needs to act to deter such acts, and it should use hate crime legislation to do so.
So, the arguments against this bill are not very strong, but why did so many members of Congress, especially Republicans vote against the bill? Why would an enormous national party vote against a bill that seeks to punish those who attack a certain group of minority citizens in the United States?
I think it is fairly clear that the Republican party is the party of homophobia. They are the party that does not want to extend civil rights or protections to gays. They do not want gays to become accepted members of society. They are perfectly happy to see a continuation of the violence that gays currently face.
Perhaps my judgement is a bit harsh, but I am appalled by the actions of the Republican Party in regards to the Matthew Shepard Act. I simply do not understand how a public official of this great nation could vote against a bill that seeks to deter violence against gays.
So, the arguments against this bill are not very strong, but why did so many members of Congress, especially Republicans vote against the bill? Why would an enormous national party vote against a bill that seeks to punish those who attack a certain group of minority citizens in the United States?
I think it is fairly clear that the Republican party is the party of homophobia. They are the party that does not want to extend civil rights or protections to gays. They do not want gays to become accepted members of society. They are perfectly happy to see a continuation of the violence that gays currently face.
Perhaps my judgement is a bit harsh, but I am appalled by the actions of the Republican Party in regards to the Matthew Shepard Act. I simply do not understand how a public official of this great nation could vote against a bill that seeks to deter violence against gays.
What do you think about how the Matthew Shepard Act fared in Congress? What do you think about it failing to get past a subcommittee for 6 years? What do you think about the threatened veto from President Bush? What do you think about the two maps linked below? What do you think about how the Republican party overall treated this issue? What do you think about hate crime laws in general? Are they needed?
Two links you might find interesting:
On a side note, I recall FOX News devoting a lot of coverage to the argument that the Matthew Shepard murder was not even a hate crime. I disagree with this interpretation, but let's pretend (for a moment) that the FOX News argument is correct.
My response would be, "Who cares?!" Just because Matthew Shepard's death was not a hate crime does not mean hate crimes do not exist. They do exist, and they are a real problem in the United States, which is why we need this bill.
19 comments:
I'm not really enthusiastic for any kind of hate crimes legislation. Perhaps if somebody assaults me because I'm Catholic, the judge might consider stiffening the sentence a bit because of the bigotry behind the crime. But to me, an assault and battery is an assault and battery, and a murder is a murder. I do see the value in society implicitly sending the message that the hatred in question is un-American. So I'm not strongly opposed, either. And I think if there is going to be hate crime legislation, it should cover orientation.
I'm opposed to hate crime laws at the federal level. This is part of a very unfortunate trend to federalize all crime. The federal government is there to take care of interstate matters, as enumerated in the Constitution. The states are supposed to take exercise the police powers to protect their citizens from local crime. We don't need to keep expanding the powers and responsibilities of U.S. attorneys and judges for things the states already have D.A.'s and courts to handle.
Here's one example of why I want the feds to butt out. In Massachusetts, we decided long ago not to have capital punishment. But there are now federal laws that enable the U.S. attorneys to prosecute murders in some circumstances, with a death penalty available. So we've had situations where a U.S. attorney has made a federal case out of a local murder, and that basically nullifies our state's decision not to execute anybody. Grrr.
So I'd like to see all federal hate crime laws repealed, and let the states handle it, which is their job.
But I'm afraid that a lot of the Republicans who voted against it did so because they thought their constituents were against equal protection for gays.
I see the point of naturgesetz. However, the federal legislation provides an advantage for people from more conservative states, who aould otherwise face the choice of migrating to a more liberal state (like Massachusets) or living under a harsher legislation (like the one that there'd surely be in more religious states like Utah).
So I guess it is necessary to have some basic level of protection at federal level and then every state will be free to go further on, but not backwards.
While I believe States' Rights are important, I think history has shown that when it comes to civil rights, the federal government does need to play a significant role.
I think we do need the help of the feds b/c the state government seems like they wont do anything at all when it comes to doing what's right
Case in point: The Little Rock 9
The governor refused to allow those African American students to the all white school and the U.S. president came in finally they were allowed to inter in the all white school.
I wouldn't want to wait for states to do the job b/c it would take years for them to pass hate crime laws down south so I'm very glad the Federal government is working on this (granted I could kick their asses for talking so long)
but nevertheless at least I know some punishment would happen rather then being too busy to worry about weather about which state has a law or not to protect me.
I seldom agree with Naturgesetz (especially when religion is involved), but I agree with him in this instance. As a matter of comity it is the policy of the US Justice Department not to prosecute cases that have been previously prosecuted on the state level. Exceptions have been made where the state authorities have mishandled a high profile case, or have been spectacularly unsuccessful at trial. (More recently, Michael Vick was prosecuted federally when it appeared that the state prosecution in Surry County, VA would be ineffectual.) However, federalizing common law crimes of violence is unnecessary. After all, weren't Matt Shepard's killers punished adequately by Wyoming? They were charged with capital murder. One turned state's evidence and accepted two life terms to avoid the death penalty. The second was well on his way to the gurney, but Shepard's parents asked the prosecution to give him the same penality as the co-defendant, and in deference they did. In the case of James Byrd, Jr, the black man who was dragged to death by three Texas rednecks, two of the perpetrators were given the death penalty and the third life imprisonment. Pressure groups wanted both such crimes federalized, but I doubt if the Feds would have achieved better results. I can assure you that vicious murder of whatever sort is prosecuted well on the state level, and unless there is substantial reason to believe state law will not be enforced, there is no reason to reflexively hand these cases over to the US Attorney. Before you conclude that local people will tolerate these crimes of hate, remember that even the late Jerry Falwell(no friend of the gay agenda) was horrified by the Shepard murder, and called Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church leader, "a first class nut". He said Westboro's picketing of the Shepard memorial service had nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with meanness. (In response, Westboro picketed Falwell's church and, after he died, his funeral.) So this kind of violence is not mainstream, and I can assure you that in most conservative jurisdictions there is a greater liklihood such murderers will be condemned to death than in the liberal ones.
On a related matter, I acknowledge that my natural pugnacity prompted my suggestion that you stand up to gay bashers. Each of us must chose what works for him. But don't desist because of fear your assailant will escape under a "gay panic" defense. You may be assured that criminals will claim anything they think will get them out of trouble. They would claim "gay panic" whether you said anything to them or not, especially if you are dead and not around to testify against them. "Gay panic" is just another jailhouse con, and, frankly, a rather pathetic defense tactic. It will promptly be relegated to the defense lawyer's scrap heap, to join the "Prozac defense" promoted by Scientologists in the
'90's. I know I was pushing the envelope with you, but I'll be damned if I would allow one of these twits to degrade me publicly without my pointing out that their balls are mere props.
Hmm, Naturgesetz makes a very poignant point. However, if this Act merely adds on to an already existing federal hate crime law, then I see no reason to not let it pass.
The federal government can work at an infuriatingly slow pace sometimes (often times?). There is a whole tangle of legality and politics that I do not wish to venture into. I have enough things to be furious about in the health fields alone, let alone the politics behind that!
The Repubs want to keep their hardcore "Christian" supporters, so they play the "I hate fags more than the other guy does" card all too often.
Even more sickening is the "Christians" who do nothing but spread vicious, disgusting lies about homosexuals. I guess the commandment to not bear false witness doesn't count if they're lying about queers. Janet Parshall, Hank Hanegraaff, Donald Wildmon, Jay Sekulow (sp?), etc. Go look 'em up. They're filth masquerading as humans masquerading as Christians.
One point missed by many about hate crimes legislation:
Specific groups are not protected. What is protected is being attacked/beaten/murdered/etc for being part of a specific group.
That sounds like the same thing, I know. Lemmy 'splain.
Attacking someone because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, etc, is a hate crime. It should matter not whether the victim is a part of a specific group.
In other words, five Jews brutally beating a Christian because he is a Christian, would be a hate crime.
A homosexual murdering a straight person because she was straight, would be a hate crime.
It does not, no matter how many claim it does, mean harsher penalties simply if the victim is a minority. It means harsher penalties if the victim was targeted for being a member of a race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
The Matthew Shepard Act does not mean making gays a protected group, it means adding sexual orientation to the list already in place. It means gays could be prosecuted for hate crimes against heterosexuals, but the haters don't want you to know that.
What really infuriates me is religious affiliation is covered by hate crimes legislation. Religion is in absolutely no way anything but a choice. Yet the Christo Nazis demand that they be protected for their choice of religion while insisting that sexual orientation doesn't deserve any such protection.
If they're gonna put their money where their mouth is, they should demand that religion no longer be considered by hate crime legislation. After all, there are already laws in place to deal with crimes against people because of their religion, right?
Of course, many of them will bald-faced lie that they are not protected in their choice of religion.
NOTE: Yes, Christo Nazis is a very offensive term that I just made up. I chose it because what they want is genocide. They want homosexuals wiped off the face of the Earth, just as the Nazis wanted to do to the Jews, Gypsies, etc.
I really think you are missing the point, HCI. First degree and capital murderers (who act with malice aforethought) will kill for the most trivial of reasons, or no reason at all. Is the person who kills another because of his sexual orientation less opprobrious than the person who decides he is going to kill someone because he wants the $5 in his wallet? Or what about the pizza parlor robber who shoots five people to death in the cooler so they won't be able to identify him in court? Are these cases less deserving of vigorous prosecution and the death penalty, irrespective of the race or sexual orientation of the victims? The worst murders are all vicious hate crimes. Do you think you are more likely to obtain justice if you change the sovereign that prosecutes the offender? By your logic, and assuming we are always more likely to get better justice from the Feds, we should add as many categories of hate crimes to the statute as there are bullshit reasons sociopathic offenders offer up as their excuses. That's why the passage of these statutes has less to do with bringing the offenders to justice than it does assuaging some aggrieved constituency, and making it feel good. You will make a better case for the Shepard bill if you can point to some homophobic murder prosecuted under state law in the last decade or so that would have produced a tougher result had it gone to a Federal jury. How many death penalties have you seen handed down in Federal court? You have to be a terrorist like Timothy McVey to be executed by the Feds. But God help you if you maliciously kill anyone in Texas, or even Wyoming. If there is not a manifest need for legislation, what's the need to pass it? I'd rather see Matt remembered through something more momentous than a law that is nothing more than window dressing.
In the history of this country there have been extraordinary instances in which the states have systematically failed to protect human rights, and amendment of the United States Code was the only way to rectify the situation. Obviously the best example of this are the enactments that promoted black civil rights, starting with the 13th Amendment. Much as I despise homophobia, we are not facing a necessity of that magnitude.
You make an interesting comparison between capital murders and hate crime related murders, but I think that the comparison is not apt.
As you said, a capital murder is committed with little reason at all. In such an event, the a local court is bound to view the murderer in the same light as a federal court: as a disgusting human being. Our culture does not foster killing a woman and her baby because they "looked at you funny."
On the other hand, our culture does foster violence against other people based on arbitrary traits such as skin color or sexual orientation. When it is the culture of an entire region that is creating this sort of behavior, then sometimes local courts will not give a fair trial. This was obviously the case with blacks during the civil rights era.
However, I agree with you when you say that homophobia is not as violently strong as racism was. Nevertheless, 51% of Americans believe that homosexuality is "an unacceptable lifestyle." That is an awfully high percentage, and that means that about half of the jury is already looking at the victim in a negative light. This *may* cause them to give the criminal a lighter sentence. Also, I believe that this percentage is higher in certain states, which makes federal hate crime legislation more important.
:/
tbh, for me, the whole thing is a bit of a culture shock, i guess
sexual orientation has been included as reasons for a hate crime for... a long time.
i guess it's a reminder of how lucky i am to live where i do, when i watch all the issues in the usa and gay/equal rights
J,
Currently, federal hate crime legislation covers "race, color, religion, or national origin."
18 U.S.C. § 245 was enacted in 1968, so it's hardly something new. The Shepard Act seeks to add gender (actual or perceived), sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the above four. It's primary purpose is to put those addtional four on an equal plane with the four already present.
I found this little tidbit while researching:
The Laramie, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office had to furlough five deputies in order to cover the more than $150,000 that it cost to investigate Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet when Jasper, Texas investigated the lynching of James Byrd, Jr., it received $284,000 in federal funds because Byrd’s murder was motivated by race, rather than sexual orientation. This need for broader training and assistance has prompted almost every major law enforcement organization and 26 state attorneys general to support the legislation.
I still ask if there is any instance in recent history in which local prosecutors failed to pursue a gay hate murder because of community homophobia?
The presence or absence of cultural promotion of hatred is relevant to the trial process unless it compromises the ability of the trier of fact, whether judge or jury, to be fair. Where they exist, biased judges don't last long on the bench because of appellate, professional and legislative oversight. Federalization of a crime doesn't insulate a court from cultural stressors, as even Federal jury panels are composed of citizens drawn from the Federal district of the state where the crime was committed. But all courts that convene jury trials go through a process known as voir dire, in which prospective jurors are asked questions under oath that are designed to ferret out the sort of prejudice that would taint a panel and excuse the juror for cause. Either the accused or the prosecution can secure a change of the venue of the trial if the jury venire is so biased it is virtually impossible to seat a fair panel. (For the accused, these rights are secured in state courts by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.)
Regarding motive, unless the statute says otherwise there is no requirement in any court that the prosecution prove a motive for the crime, although the existence of a motive can provide excellent circumstantial evidence of an accused's guilt. In capital litigation the US Supreme Court has imposted strict requirements pursuant to the Eighth Amendment on what must be established before a capital murderer can be sentenced to death. The killing must show depravity of mind, in that the crime was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman. The circumstances in the Shepard case obviously fit this bill because of the torture and aggravated battery inflicted on an innocent victim. So capital murder by express definition is a hate crime.
I guess the point here is that there is nothing inherently defective in state prosecution of "hate" crimes, or with state judges and juries, if you just give them a chance.
J,
As I stated, hate crime legislation goes back 40+ years. The opposition to the addition of sexual orientation sends a clear message that sexual orientation is an acceptible motivation for a crime while race, color, religion and national origin are not.
If there were no hate crimes laws already on the books, I would probably feel differently. Keeping sexual orientation out of hate crimes legislation, however, is yet another way the "religious right" seeks to vilify and dehumanize homosexuals, despite the fact that they, too, would be covered by such legislation.
Were it suggested that choice of religion be removed from hate crime legislation, you better believe the same people who oppose adding sexual orientation would throw gigantic hissy fits.
But why do we need it if existing criminal statutes are getting the job done? To make a political statement against the religious right? My Jeffersonian inclinations forbid such acts, and you may be assured that opposition to expansion of Federal hate jurisdiction is not necessarily the product of religious right venality. Indeed, most principled scholars of government would agree that legislation should never be symbolic. It must remedy a present deficiency. If what you want is grant money, that can be handled as all such things are--through legislative appropriation, not through expansion of the Federal criminal code. I doubt you will ever find an appropriation parked in Title 18.2 of the United States Code.
I think the only clear message we need to send to the sort of scum that killed Shepard is to give them a little more Texas justice, and we already have the tools to accomplish this task. As for those whose moral sensibilities cause them to abhor the death penalty, I say that death is no more morally unacceptable a fate for dangerous defectives than keeping them in a cage for the rest of their lives. It's got to be one or the other.
On another note, I discovered I erroniously typed "relevant" rather than "irrelevant" in the fifth line of my third post, if anyone is paying attention to the logical continuity of these glorious rants.
"But why do we need it if existing criminal statutes are getting the job done? "
If that was the case then the idea of the Matthew Shepard would have never come up
"I think the only clear message we need to send to the sort of scum that killed Shepard is to give them a little more Texas justice"
A slap on the wrist? B/c I doubt the guy would get more then that.
If a majority of the people think homosexuality is wrong then that same majority wont kill the guy
I mean that's like Ford saying "Toyota's cars are better then our cars"
Not going to happen
Excuse, I find this all very interesting however you all are missing a point here I belive.
My Father use to have a say "you can legislate people" meaning you can pass all the laws you want but so what ?
By passing these Hate Crime laws and others is not going to stop the crime.
Sorry just woke up here
shold have said "Excuse me"
and you can`t legislate people"
There's a news report out of Dallas dated Aug. 28, 2009 that reports a local thug who brutally beat and robbed two gays was convicted of aggravated robbery by Dallas County juries in separate trials. The first jury recommended a sentence of 75 years. The second jury's recommendation hasn't been handed down yet. Defendant Bobby Singleton's lawyer, someone named (get this!)Ed "Bubba" King, complained to the media that, "This would have been treated a lot differently if Mr. Dean (the victim) wasn't gay." He said Singleton didn't deserve more than 20 years. I'd be willing to bet Mr. Singleton's queer rolling days are over, unless he gets rolled behind bars. As they say, don't mess with Texas.
So, Jason, don't sell the South short.
For those who want to know the final vote was 68-28 and waiting for Obama to sign
Post a Comment