Hate Crime legislation
On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded Federal hate crime laws to apply to crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Hate-crime legislation has a nice ring to it; I mean, who wouldn’t want to protect another human being from harassment or violence? Here’s what your liberal legislators don’t want you to know: the laws already protect every citizen from harassment and violence, and they do it by applying those laws equally to all Americans. Singling out one segment of society for additional protection is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law. Such laws would constitute special rights, rather than equal rights.
In the liberals’ unrelenting attempt to legitimize homosexual behavior, they have fought to pass laws criminalizing hate speech against gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. These laws fail to meet the constitutional requirement of the First Amendment, which prohibits restricting free speech regardless of how objectionable it may be. It further violates the Fourteenth Amendment because once again, it singles out a specific segment of the population for extra protection. Of course, the argument goes, if gays are entitled to additional protection, then why not Muslims, Buddhists and Christians who face far more offensive attacks?
Conservatives oppose hate crime legislation because we understand that laws should govern behavior and acts. Hate crimes seek to attach additional penalties for intent or thoughts, and that defies centuries of Western legal tradition along with our Constitution. As an example, suppose a women is assaulted while walking down a city block. Now assume the perpetrators are caught, arrested, and charged with assault. Due to the circumstances, they face up to three years in prison. If the perpetrators yelled out a racial slur right before the crime, then additional penalties and charges can be filed under current hate crime legislation. So now rather than face three years, the criminals will likely spend more time in jail. The problem with this case is that the perpetrators of this crime are being charged for their thoughts, assuming they are racists and hate gays, or blacks or whites. Of course having racist thoughts are not and should not be a crime in a free society. Second, this violates the concept of equality, which is central to our legal system, because if I'm assaulted and they don't yell a racial slur, or I'm not a protected class, then they only get three years for assaulting me, and they get, say six years for the same assault on a minority. In both cases, the victim received the same injuries but the criminal get a different sentence.
As another example, suppose two people each burn down a $100,000 house and are both charged with arson in separate cases. One did it for the insurance money, the other because it was the house of a Hispanic. One of the criminals is charged with arson, the other with arson and hate. In one case, the jury has to decide whether he committed the crime, in the other the jury has to decide whether he committed the crime and whether he hates Mexicans. Forgetting that hate is subjective and very hard to prove, both victims suffered the same loss, yet one will see an extended penalty for his perpetrator. Suppose racism motivated the second crime. So what? A crime is a crime as far as the victim is concerned.
In a free society, we are free to love and hate whoever we choose. We should be free to express those thoughts so long as another's rights aren't violated. Hate crime legislation punishes thoughts. And while these examples may not seem objectionable to some under these circumstances, when the government gets the legal authority to prosecute one's thoughts, it is possible that we are entering a slippery slope.
Articles
Federal Hate Crimes Statute: An Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power Brian W. Walsh
In the liberals’ unrelenting attempt to legitimize homosexual behavior, they have fought to pass laws criminalizing hate speech against gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. These laws fail to meet the constitutional requirement of the First Amendment, which prohibits restricting free speech regardless of how objectionable it may be. It further violates the Fourteenth Amendment because once again, it singles out a specific segment of the population for extra protection. Of course, the argument goes, if gays are entitled to additional protection, then why not Muslims, Buddhists and Christians who face far more offensive attacks?
Conservatives oppose hate crime legislation because we understand that laws should govern behavior and acts. Hate crimes seek to attach additional penalties for intent or thoughts, and that defies centuries of Western legal tradition along with our Constitution. As an example, suppose a women is assaulted while walking down a city block. Now assume the perpetrators are caught, arrested, and charged with assault. Due to the circumstances, they face up to three years in prison. If the perpetrators yelled out a racial slur right before the crime, then additional penalties and charges can be filed under current hate crime legislation. So now rather than face three years, the criminals will likely spend more time in jail. The problem with this case is that the perpetrators of this crime are being charged for their thoughts, assuming they are racists and hate gays, or blacks or whites. Of course having racist thoughts are not and should not be a crime in a free society. Second, this violates the concept of equality, which is central to our legal system, because if I'm assaulted and they don't yell a racial slur, or I'm not a protected class, then they only get three years for assaulting me, and they get, say six years for the same assault on a minority. In both cases, the victim received the same injuries but the criminal get a different sentence.
As another example, suppose two people each burn down a $100,000 house and are both charged with arson in separate cases. One did it for the insurance money, the other because it was the house of a Hispanic. One of the criminals is charged with arson, the other with arson and hate. In one case, the jury has to decide whether he committed the crime, in the other the jury has to decide whether he committed the crime and whether he hates Mexicans. Forgetting that hate is subjective and very hard to prove, both victims suffered the same loss, yet one will see an extended penalty for his perpetrator. Suppose racism motivated the second crime. So what? A crime is a crime as far as the victim is concerned.
In a free society, we are free to love and hate whoever we choose. We should be free to express those thoughts so long as another's rights aren't violated. Hate crime legislation punishes thoughts. And while these examples may not seem objectionable to some under these circumstances, when the government gets the legal authority to prosecute one's thoughts, it is possible that we are entering a slippery slope.
Articles
Federal Hate Crimes Statute: An Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power Brian W. Walsh