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.
