Here’s the dilly, kids: it’s time for our U.S. Senate candidates to tell us where they stand on the federal hate crimes bill. Do they support equal protections for everyone? Or are they cowards?
In 2006, then-Attorney General Greg Stumbo had the guts to sign a letter with dozens of other Attorneys General in support of “immediate passage of federal hate crimes legislation.” That should say a lot– that a conservative Democrat in Kentucky can support equality for the gays. So we think it’s time everyone else make their position known. Today. Right now.
Let’s take a look at that letter Stumbo signed as proof:
We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are writing to express our strong support of Congressional efforts towards the immediate passage of federal hate crimes legislation. As the chief legal officers in our respective jurisdictions, State Attorneys General are on the front lines in the fight to protect our citizens’ civil rights. Although state and local governments continue to have the primary responsibility for enforcing criminal law, we believe that federal assistance is critical in fighting the invidious effects of hate crimes.
This much needed legislation would remove unnecessary jurisdictional barriers to permit the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute violent acts motivated by bias and hate and complement existing federal law by providing new authority for crimes where the victim is intentionally selected because of his or her gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Under current law, the Justice Department can only prosecute crimes motivated by the victim’s race, religion, or national origin when that person is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting.
Click here to read the entire thing. (Warning: PDF Link)
So. If Greg Stumbo can do it, why can’t the rest of our candidates and elected officials?
It’s time for Rand Paul, Jack Conway, Jim Bunning, Trey Grayson, Daniel Mongiardo, that Darlene lady, Cathy Bailey and whatever other character is coming out of woodwork to chime in. Their spokespeople should issue official statements to us, ASAP. If we don’t hear from them, we’ll just assume they stand against hate crimes protection for everyone and are full-on homophobes.
And while we’re at it… Governor Steve Beshear, Mayor Jerry Abramson, Mayor Jim Newberry, John Yarmuth, Ben Chandler, Hal Rogers, Mitch McConnell, Geoff Davis, Brett Guthrie, Ed Whitfield– where do you stand? What about their potential challengers? It’s time to make your position known. We’ll hold you all to the same standards as our senate candidates. Kentucky deserves to know what you think.
28 responses so far ↓
1 Zach Everson // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Being against hate-crime legislation hardly means one’s a homophobe.
I’m for gay marriage, gays in the military, and benefits for the partners of gay employees. Hate crimes legislation, however, is a farce.
The “Cartman’s Silly Hate Crimes” episode of South Park does a much better and funnier job of explaining why than I could ever do:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/401/
All crimes involve hate, and motivation shouldn’t be relevant. Such a law would just take the United States one step closer to having Orwell’s Thought Police.
Also, if you interview Attorney General Conway again, please ask him if he’ll be supporting the Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit against the U.S. government that challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
2 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So… someone can be protected based on the country from which they’re from but I can’t be protected from being beaten (with a guaranteed right to justice) because I’m gay?
THAT is a farce.
How can one be against the death penalty because you think it’s extreme or whatever but not support hate crimes legislation?
Nice.
3 3CardNana // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Jake, you are protected because it’s against the law. Hate Crimes legislation makes any crime against a gay person some sort of super crime regardless of whether the intent was because they are gay. Crime is crime, pure and simple. You start making certain versions of the same crime worse than others and you are sliding down thought police alley.
4 E // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:26 pm
As was discussed on the “My View Matters” radio show with Chris Hartman, the discerning factor in a hate crime, is that it involves a measure of premeditation…a predisposition to hunt a person, if you will.
Violence in any form (other than self defense) is reprehensible, but people that are predisposed to harm another, as opposed to the ‘usual heat of the moment’ violence…represents something a little more vile.
It’s the predisposition and predator-like aspect of ‘hate crimes’ that justify more severe treatment in the eyes of the law.
5 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:35 pm
That’s bullshit and you know it, “3Card.”
A super crime?
It’s like the fairness ordinance in Louisville. If I’m fired from my job for being gay, I can sue. Just like a person can sue if they’re fired because they’re from China or because they’re non-white. If I’m refused housing or police services because I’m gay (and it most definitely happens, as I have reported on a number of occasions), I can sue.
Why is it extended sentences are already granted for crimes motivated by sexism, racism and xenophobia… but crimes based on sexual orientation and disability do not?
I love how it’s always Republican white guys – who are surrounded by homosexuals, I might add – are the ones who speak against hate crimes legislation. White fear, as usual.
6 Zach Everson // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm
If you were beaten, ideally you’d get the same rights that anyone would get when being beaten: nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t see how it’s inconsistent at all to be anti-death penalty and anti-hate crimes legislation: both are examples of big government. Short of that similarity, I don’t see much of a relationship between the two.
Given the make-up of the Supreme Court, this legislation is a waste of resources for gay-advocacy groups, as if it ever reaches the Court it’ll likely get thrown out. Their efforts should go toward trying to securing benefits for partners of workers who are gay.
I’m happy to discuss the issue over coffee though.
7 3CardNana // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I certainly agree with you Jake that if we are to accept hate crime legislation for sexism, racism and xenophobia that it should also include sexual orientation and disability.
I also don’t have a problem with the ability to sue in the situations you have detailed above. I just don’t think that one murder is worse than another because murder is beyond awful no matter what the motive. That’s my only beef.
8 E // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:51 pm
It’s also worth noting that the VAST majority of hate crimes or shall I say ” premeditated prejudicial crime” is racially motivated.
(what do you think of that description, I just came up with that?)
9 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Zach: Fact of the matter is, the crimes are NOT treated equally.
Big government? It’s takes more government resources to keep a criminal alive than it does to fry them and spread their ashes. So. Nice spin.
And it can be argued that more government resources are used right now when someone is attacked over sexual orientation because there is no streamlined process in place to protect gay individuals. Example: Appeal after appeal after appeal because gay panic gets continually used as a defense.
Once hate crimes legislation is enacted, motive (like in instances of racial discrimination) can be considered by the courts.
Definitely don’t have the desire to discuss the matter over coffee. You need to educate yourself.
And no one suggested one murder is more awful than another. But it’s certainly my opinion that killing someone because they’re gay is certainly different than killing someone in self-defense.
10 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm
E: There’s no way to know that.
Currently, there’s no solid method for tracking sexual orientation because sexual orientation.
Many law enforcement agencies don’t even consider hate crimes when it comes to statistics.
11 E // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Jake, I could be wrong…but I seem to recall Chris Hartman himself noted that point when on the show.
12 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm
A quick Google machine search reveals that there’s no solid measure for tracking sexual orientation-biased hate crimes. Many law enforcement agencies don’t track them for whatever reason.
The FBI says there are more racially-biased hate crimes and I don’t dispute that. But I definitely dispute the “vast” remark because there’s really no way to know.
13 Zach Everson // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I couldn’t agree more, Jake, that in reality the crimes are not treated equally. But the answer should be doing a better job of enforcing existing laws and reprimanding law enforcement officials that don’t give victims who are gay the justice that they deserve.
I also agree that it is far worse to kill someone because of their sexuality compared to killing someone in self defense. But is it any worse to kill someone for being gay than it is to kill him or her for being white, black, Jewish, Muslim, rich, or poor?
As for the death penalty, it is far more costly than life in prison without parole. This recent article from The Economist, “The Death Penalty: Saving Lives and Money” provides examples: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13279051
14 Taylor // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Jake, I’m 100% with you on the need to pass hate crimes legislation. And while I think anytime people start talking about big or small gov’t it’s a load of bull, I felt the need to call you out on:
Big government? It’s takes more government resources to keep a criminal alive than it does to fry them and spread their ashes.
Actually, the death penalty drains more resources than life imprisonment due to the drawn out legal appeals process, which is nothing short of necessary to guarantee that each person is treated fairly under the law. Evidence from the none-too-liberal Economist.
Just a thought to consider. Refer to the KCADP if you want more like that.
15 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm
There’s no legislation in place to reprimand law enforcement officials.
And how can one do a better job at enhancing sentences if there’s no legal way to enhance a sentence of a gay hate-based hate crime (while there is for anti-white hate)?
Nope – it’s not worse to kill someone because they’re gay or black or whatever. Which is why the law should be adjusted to make things equal.
The article you cite says squat about making government bigger. Just that eliminating the death penalty could save money by removing the need to take an offender through the system to secure the death penalty. It doesn’t address the added staff, resources, facilities, food, health care, yadda yadda to support a criminal living off the government teat.
16 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:19 pm
P.S. As just shared with me by a friend…
The intention of hate crimes legislation is to prevent heinous acts by creating a process for elevating less serious acts like graffiti or stalking or threatening… and addressing the behavior before it escalates to murder
If someone spray paints “stupid” on my fence, that’s annoying. But if someone spray paints “Kill stupid whore faggot bitches,” that’s a whole other ball game.
17 keatssycamore // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:23 pm
When I went to law school, the first real push for ‘hate crimes’ legislation was just underway and I’d like to have a discussion about it here, but perhaps with the temperature turned down a little. I like to rant, and to read people rant, as much as the next guy, but I’m really interested in trying to see all sides of this issue. Here’s my attempt to contribute to that discussion:
I don’t think I support hate crimes legislation, but I do want to take a swipe at the folks above who think we can’t have these kinds of laws because they look at the motivations behind the criminal’s actions. Fact is that the court already, in many instances and respects, looks at motivations.
Therefore, when 3CardNana writes, “You start making certain versions of the same crime worse than others and you are sliding down thought police alley.” I immediately think to myself that there are at least 3 categories of murder, as well as several flavors of manslaughter, that can result from the crime of killing someone and it is the motivations and mental state that determine which crime(s) will be charged/convicted/acquitted.
That’s why when E writes, “the discerning factor in a hate crime, is that it involves a measure of premeditation … as opposed to the ‘usual heat of the moment’ violence” he is showing that the law already takes motivations/mental states into consideration using the examples of pre-meditation and heat of passion.
So I don’t see any reason (besides the practical ones about how hard it is for a jury/judge to divine actual motivations in a trial and the kinds of abusive charging practices prosecutors would no doubt develop for even more leverage/advantage over the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ person who is being charged) why the mere fact that ‘hate crimes’ legislation would require an examination of a criminal’s motivations is somehow unique in our legal system, or would in some way become a new feature that the system’s never seen before.
Having said that, now it’s time for my (gentle) attempt to explain to jake and other ‘hate crimes’ supporters why I’m ultimately not in favor of them.
It is my view that with prosecutorial discretion being absolute and with prosecutors being elected to office, that ‘hate crimes’ would represent the opportunity for the kind of political abuse/twisting of intent that I always fear can flow from the state in its exercise of justice/regulation.
Simply consider the case of the New Haven firefighters getting awarded promotions despite the civil rights language saying disparate impact against minorities is not to be allowed. When you consider the decision, you’ll see what a powerful force/problem a certain segment of the population thinks ‘reverse racism’ is. Such a problem that the like-minded members of the Supreme Court made it so that one instance of ‘reverse discrimination’ trumps evidence of an impact so disparate that not a single non-white firefighter passed this written test.
So I envision southern towns (like Jena, LA) doing much the same thing they’ve always done anyway (use prosecutorial discretion to under-charge the white guy while using prosecutorial discretion to over-charge the 6 black guys), but they would additionally be able to enhance the penalty on the black guys by charging that they attacked the white kid b/c he was white.
I can see how much the same thing may have happened if Matthew Shepard had been beaten nearly death (instead of all the way to death) and then he went and got five of his gay friends to help him beat his attacker to death and leave that guy on a fence row in Wyoming. The elected prosecutor would certainly want to bring ‘hate crimes’ enhancement to bear on the Matthew and his 5 gay friends because it will be popular with the electorate that he does so. In fact, they’re going to demand it. Meanwhile, bringing a ‘hate crimes’ enhancement against a straight for killing a gay will, OTOH, be much less popular with the rural electorate of Wyoming.
So I think I see these ‘hate crimes’ enhancements as far too vulnerable to the political realities of being an elected prosecutor (what with prosecutorial discretion being what it is).
In other words, I fear that in trying to give extra-protection to minority groups, you are simply handing the majority (through elected prosecutors) another club with which to beat down unpopular groups/individuals in exchange for the votes that siding with the majority brings.
Don’t know if that explanation makes sense to jake or any other readers. Especially since I’m not the greatest writer ever, but I think this is how I have evolved on this issue since law school a decade ago.
18 Zach Everson // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Clearly law enforcement officials who fail to do their job and enforce laws equally can be fired for poor performance and failing to abide by an oath they swore to uphold.
How are their ways to enhance sentences for anti-white hate that don’t apply to anti-gay hate?
And, furthermore, how are the laws not equal? There’s no law saying that murders of heterosexuals in the first degree get 50 years whereas those killing homosexuals in the first degree, all things being equal, get just 30.
The problem, as I see it, is not in the law, but in the application of it. Rather than rectify that issue with a new law, why not just enforce existing ones?
As for the cost of the death penalty versus life in prison, the Death Penalty Information Center has a lot of data showing that for most states, death is more expensive than life, including both court and incarceration costs:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Please keep in mind that many trials that seek the death penalty end up with prison sentences, yet still bear much of the additional costs of a capital case. And death sentences don’t result in immediate execution: we still end up paying for housing these inmates for decades.
19 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Here’s a hint… Google: “hate crimes legislation enhanced sentence” for your answer.
P.S. I’ll take your positions on the death penalty seriously when you aren’t paid by KCADP.
20 Just me // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm
keatssycamore
FWIW, I appreciate your explanation. My gut reaction is ‘for’ hate crimes legislation. However, looking at it from the elected prosecutorial discretion side…a lot to consider. Thank you.
21 Zach Everson // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Take me seriously Jake:
KCADP does not pay me at all.
I volunteer for–and have donated my own money to–the cause.
22 keatssycamore // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:19 pm
jake,
Let me also add that to the extent existing/proposed hate crimes laws protect for race and religion, then I believe sexuality ought to be on par with those.
In fact, I think sexuality should be like the other suspect classes when it comes to civil rights (strict scrutiny standard should be applied). Even if you don’t think sexuality is an immutable characteristic (I think it clearly is for many people, though I think there’s something of a HedwigAngryInch thing going on in that, for some people, sexuality is more fluid-I think they’re called ‘deviant King Jamies’, or ‘normal bi-sexuals’ in non-Hawpe slang), you’d have to admit that religion is also not immutable.
After all, I think most people from the ends of the sexuality spectrum would believe that making out with a member of the sex one is not attracted requires a commitment that is at least equal to the commitment associated with having your head sprinkled with water/or taking a dunking in a jacuzzi.
Just wanted to try to be a bit more clear (if not more concise) about a few background issues.
23 EastkyDem // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Yarmuth and Chandler have already voted on Hate Crimes legislation last congress, they were both courageous enough to pass it.
24 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Yet not courageous enough to comment on it. Yarmuth I can excuse because I know exactly where he stands. Ben Chandler, however, probably doesn’t have the balls to speak up.
25 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Everson: Glad to hear you’re not paid.
26 Terri // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
So…lynching was bad just b/c it murdered people, and not b/c it terrorized whole communities in people and was meant to keep “them” in “their place?” Nice.
27 Terri // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Given the make-up of the Supreme Court, this legislation is a waste of resources for gay-advocacy groups, as if it ever reaches the Court it’ll likely get thrown out. Their efforts should go toward trying to securing benefits for partners of workers who are gay.
Don’t you love it Jake, when people who have no idea what it’s like to walk a mile in your shoes start telling you what your priorities should really be?
28 jake // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Mmm hmm.
Hetero WASPy knows best.
Give me health insurance but don’t give me the same protections as everyone else when it comes to the law. Awesome.
Leave a Comment