Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Hate crime legislation unconstitutional, redundant

millman.5@osu.edu

Published: Sunday, November 1, 2009

Updated: Sunday, November 1, 2009 20:11

President Obama grandly proclaimed that, "no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love," as he signed an expansion of federal hate crimes law last week. The fact that this statement and the bill have no relationship to each other is a perfect example of politics at its worst.


Federal law was expanded to include crimes motivated by a person's gender identity, sexual orientation or disability as being hate crimes. Hate crimes legislation does nothing to protect victims while doing irreparable damage to our Constitutional rights.


President Obama's statement ignores the fact that we already have laws protecting people who walk down the street holding hands. Those laws are based on actual crimes occurring; I certainly didn't have the right to assault a gay couple three weeks ago. Now the law says that killing a teacher because I hate teachers is less of a crime than killing someone who is gay because I hate gay people.


Before this law passed, juries could be informed of one's motivation in committing a crime and take that into account. Now certain hateful thoughts are deemed criminal while others are not. For lesser crimes (such as assault) trying to decode someone's thoughts and hidden bias can severely alter their sentence.


Incidents like the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, in which three students were falsely accused of hate crimes, showcase the dangerous rush to judgment found in these types of cases. The charges were brought by a prosecutor fighting for election and the students were crucified by the national media. In addition, federal prosecutors could charge those accused of hate crimes in a federal court even if they were found innocent in a state court, avoiding the ban on double jeopardy.


Proponents of hate crime legislation say that a prosecuting for hate crimes makes a statement. Yet, horrific hate crimes like the murder of Matthew Sheppard don't need hate crimes legislation for people to recognize the disgusting behavior of the perpetrators. The assailants were rightfully tried and convicted for murder.


The anti-Hate Crimes movement also has a chilling effect on free speech. An example is given in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of a pastor being charged with "hate speech" if a member of his flock went out and committed a crime against a protected group after he lectured against homosexuality. The liberal reverend who authored the article agreed that the pastor should be "held responsible for his actions." Imagine if that logic applied to conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.


Hate Crimes Legislation does nothing to make protected groups safer. What it does do is undermine constitutional liberties such as free speech and protection from double jeopardy. It is unnecessary and unconstitutional, exposing innocent people to politicized prosecution for no better reason than holding the wrong views or being in line with a prosecutor's campaign issue.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

18 comments

JB
Mon Dec 21 2009 12:03
Remember this from Animal Farm?

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

Apparently, some in our society (protected groups) are legally deemed to be "more equal" than your average Joe.

kill bill
Mon Dec 21 2009 00:44
Im a black man and i think the hate crimes law is unconstitutional. Straight white man and women are having all thier rights destroyed by the Liberal,Hollywood,media and the gay agenda,some elementary schools are teaching kid that it ok to be gay at age 5 ,keep a look out.I dont thank blacks need more rights then whites. A kill is a kill the law should be equal for Blacks,Whites,Men,Women,Straight or Gay.The U.S.A is not goning to last if this keeps up.
Megan
Tue Nov 10 2009 11:56
sarat - I wholeheartedly agree!
Barbara
Tue Nov 10 2009 09:52
This law will protect any heteros that are beaten up, murdered, etc. just because they are hetero as much as it will protect anyone that is not hetero. No special class is being set up. The law doesn't specifically protect gay people.
Juan Janse van Rensburg
Fri Nov 6 2009 14:53
This article is very well written and brings to light an important topic. I don't feel that any members of our society, specifically (in this scenario) the GLBT communty deserve special treetment by law. YES, they are more likely to be targeted of assault, and YES they're more likely to fall victim to a hate crime, but if another women who is straight is abused along with a lesbian women, haven't they both felt the same pain? All crimes are motivated, and some violators shouldn't be punnished more severly because of their motivations for commiting the crime, The truth is, they broke the law, and they should be punished how the law dictates, no more, no less.
sarat
Fri Nov 6 2009 13:11
What you do not understand in your sophomoric attempt to break down the politics of fear is that being a woman, a minority, or gay makes you a target. And young men in our society are taught subconciously that it is ok to mock the weak and different. As a man you are 75% less likely than I am to be raped ( 1 in 3 women expereince sexual abuse according to the FBI). Racial, and sexual and religious based murders do not just affect the person hurt, they affect an entire community of people. Causing young gay Americans to be ten times more likely to commit suicide. Do your research and realize that some of us wake up afraid and legislation like this helps us to feel more safe. Speaking as a woman who has been a target because of my gender and outspoken nature.
Jerry
Wed Nov 4 2009 15:42
Don't you just love the government micro managing your life? We need a Constitutional Amendment limiting the amount of tax dollars they receive, so they won't have the free money to spend on getting all up in our business. It only takes 2/3 of the states ratifying it on a ballot within 7 years. Very doable! I dare you to take this challenge, poly sci majors!
Veronica
Wed Nov 4 2009 12:05
"What it does do is undermine constitutional liberties such as free speech and protection from double jeopardy. It is unnecessary and unconstitutional, exposing innocent people to politicized prosecution for no better reason than holding the wrong views or being in line with a prosecutor’s campaign issue."

Actually, I don't think that is what it is doing at all. When an openly gay man is walking in Queens, New York and he is beaten by an obvious homophobic man, that is NOT! practicing freedom of speech!

"Now the law says that killing a teacher because I hate teachers is less of a crime than killing someone who is gay because I hate gay people."

It is ignorant to believe that teachers hold the same threat that the GLBT community does. The GLBT community DESERVES protection under law.

Chris D.
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:14
Ok so what you just told me Lewch is that in order to have equality in this country there needs to be unequal, discriminatory policies and laws?

That makes a whole lot of sense. "I want to be equal by getting special treatment." Sounds like the kind of thing that WONT help rid this country of inequalities.

Lewch
Tue Nov 3 2009 19:42
"The problem with hate crime laws is that they are actually discriminatory themselves. If a group of blacks/gays/women beat up a straight white guy just because they hate white people/men/heterosexuals why is that not a hate crime?"

If a black lesbian kicks your butt and calls you a cracker, your white hetero friends aren't gonna be afraid of walking down the street for fear of black lesbians. It's a moot scenario.

Dave
Tue Nov 3 2009 19:17
Shorter Jack Millman: Blah blah blah Leave bigots aloooone!
Chris D.
Tue Nov 3 2009 10:15
The problem with hate crime laws is that they are actually discriminatory themselves. If a group of blacks/gays/women beat up a straight white guy just because they hate white people/men/heterosexuals why is that not a hate crime? These laws are in a sense the very thing they try and stop. And if you try and tell me that this doesn't happen then you are lying to yourself and a disgrace to intelligent free thought. Hate crimes are out there and they happen to every race/gender/religion/sexual affiliation/age, protect everyone under these laws or get rid of them.
Jessica R
Mon Nov 2 2009 21:43
So there's no difference between killing someone for, say, their money or over a personal dispute, versus a public lynching? Motivation has always mattered in American law, that's why we have different sentencing standards for crimes of passion than for cold blooded murders. If someone is using assault and destruction of property to send a message to an entire community, their motive should be held against them.
Rebecca
Mon Nov 2 2009 18:01
"Incidents like the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, in which three students were falsely accused of hate crimes, showcase the dangerous rush to judgment found in these types of cases."

What? The problem there is the media deciding if someone is guilty before giving them a trial - people were mad because they decided those kids raped a girl, not because of any "hate crime law."

The basic facts of the case is that while a normal crime targets one person, a hate crime seeks to instill fear in a group of people. If I spraypaint a Jewish person's house with my tag that's one thing - but it's clearly worse if I spraypaint their house with a Nazi symbol. I agree it gets a little more complicated when we're talking murder, but the idea is we're not punishing thought. We punishing actions. You can think all the terrible things you want against gay people, go for it, but if you beat a gay person in order to send the message that "I'll kill you if you're gay, so stay away!!" that is worse than if you just beat a gay person to steal their money. The former is essentially terrorism, aimed not only at harm but at creating fear in a community.

Randall
Mon Nov 2 2009 14:12
The problem that people seem to miss is that this is an all or nothing issue. You can be against adding GLBT people to hate crime legislation on the basis that hate crime legislation does nothing, but unless you are also actively campaigning against the current hate crime laws, going against this one will come off as homophobic. It is unfair that races and sexes have hate crime laws, while GLBTs do not. Either get ride of the whole hate crime system, or let it cover everyone. You can not have both ways.
planesdrifter
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:55
Dan, could you site an instance of someone being prosecuted for a thought crime (viewpoint as you call it) because they're not politically correct?
planesdrifter
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:46
The author uses the same tired arguments of abridgment of free speech, redundant laws and possible double jeopardy that we've heard again and again to counter the inclusion of gays under the federal hates crime laws. We've already protected other groups (race, religion, gender, etc.) under federal laws and damn if I can find an example of anyone being stripped of their liberties because of it. So why does he think that will radically change now that these laws have been expanded to included other classes of people who are targets of hate? The arguments he espouses are all alarmist hypotheticals and I think belie an individual that may never have experienced anything remotely close to what this law aims to address. No law truly protects, it only gives recourse to injustice when done.
Dan B
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:18
Thank you for a well written article. I agree 100%, This appears to be steal legislation to take legal action against viewpoints hated by the mainstream media and the politically correct.






log out