Posts
Coral Ridge MinistriesDr. D. James Kennedy, Founder
When it comes to hate crimes, some victim groups are more equal than others. Some qualify for added protection; some do not.
That became painfully evident in 2007 when the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee took up a series of Republican amendments crafted to broaden the number of groups protected under a hate crime bill before Congress. One by one, amendments to protect seven at-risk groups were offered and, one by one, they were defeated on party-line votes.
Unborn children, members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, pregnant women, witnesses in a judicial proceeding, victims of prior crimes, and children were all rejected for inclusion in the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.” Only victims attacked because of their “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability” qualified to be protected under the bill. And that is by design.
An Instrument of Social Policy
Bias crime laws are very much an instrument of social policy. They “extend the drive against prejudice to matters of crime and punishment,” write James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, authors of Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. They are enacted, the authors state, for “essentially symbolic reasons.”
Grander Purpose
New York Governor Mario Cuomo cast the purpose of a hate crime measure in much the same terms in a letter to state legislators.
In 2000, Georgia state representative Dan Ponder, Jr. urged his colleagues to vote for a hate crime measure in a speech that included a remarkably frank confession that fighting crime was not the true issue.
Sending a Message
That was the hope of Joan Weiss, then-executive director of the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence. “It will take many years of national reporting before we have a meaningful data base,” she said in 1989. “But we need to start right away so Americans realize we have a serious problem with hate crimes.”
No Women or Children
The exclusion of children is striking. There are some three million reports of child abuse every year and, as the authors of Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics suggest, some percentage of attacks on children must be related to prejudice. “Nothing,” they write, “could more poignantly demonstrate what we mean by ‘the social construction of hate crime’” than the exclusion of children from the HCSA roster of protected groups.
“Protected Group” Status Is What Counts
More important, it seems, than the actual crime data, which was already being collected, was the designation of women as hate crime victims. But while women and children lost out in the grievance sweepstakes, homosexuals won the jackpot. The HCSA was, as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force proclaims on its website, “the first federal statute in our country’s history that named and recognized lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”
And, after all, recognition—not fighting crime—is what it is all about. However, for those who are concerned with fighting crime, as well as for law enforcement officials, the task of identifying and prosecuting hate crimes is great indeed.
TRUTH # 5 Hate Crime Laws Are About Recognition, Not Fighting Crime
When it comes to hate crimes, some victim groups are more equal than others. Some qualify for added protection; some do not.
That became painfully evident in 2007 when the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee took up a series of Republican amendments crafted to broaden the number of groups protected under a hate crime bill before Congress. One by one, amendments to protect seven at-risk groups were offered and, one by one, they were defeated on party-line votes.
Unborn children, members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, pregnant women, witnesses in a judicial proceeding, victims of prior crimes, and children were all rejected for inclusion in the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.” Only victims attacked because of their “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability” qualified to be protected under the bill. And that is by design.
An Instrument of Social Policy
The fact that just a short list of preferred victims is included in the federal hate crime bill lays bare the true purpose behind anti-bias laws. The point is not to protect bias-crime victims nor, frankly, is there a need to, since laws already exist to punish crime, whether motivated by prejudice or not. The real purpose is social engineering—to instruct the public on which prejudices are proscribed and which may be safely indulged. This is particularly true with respect to homosexuals who, for the first time, are included in a hate crime measure that was passed in 2007 by both the House and Senate, but failed to become law after President George W. Bush issued a veto threat. If this or similar legislation becomes law, it will provide homosexual interest groups with enormous leverage to push for further legal recognition, including the right to marry.
Bias crime laws are very much an instrument of social policy. They “extend the drive against prejudice to matters of crime and punishment,” write James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, authors of Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. They are enacted, the authors state, for “essentially symbolic reasons.”
Grander Purpose
Pronouncements by politicians illustrate the point. In 1990, New Jersey Governor Jim Florio suggested a much grander purpose for a hate crime bill under consideration in the Garden state than simply locking up offenders.
This legislation [ethnic intimidation law] does more than punish . . . . It says something about who we are, and about the ideals to which this state is committed.
New York Governor Mario Cuomo cast the purpose of a hate crime measure in much the same terms in a letter to state legislators.
[Our] single most effective weapon is the law. I implore you to support the Bias Related Violence and Intimidation Act I have proposed, and make it clear to the people of this state that behavior based on bias will not be ignored or tolerated.
In 2000, Georgia state representative Dan Ponder, Jr. urged his colleagues to vote for a hate crime measure in a speech that included a remarkably frank confession that fighting crime was not the true issue.
I would say to you that now is our turn to send a message. I am not a lawyer, I don’t know how difficult it would be to prosecute this or even care. I don’t really care that anyone is ever prosecuted under this bill. But I do care that we take this moment in time, in history, to say that we are going to send a message.
Sending a Message
Sending a message was the primary purpose in 1990 of the federal “Hate Crimes Statistics Act.” That law called on the Justice Department to collect statistics on the commission of crimes that “manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” It was touted as an aid to law enforcement, a tool to raise public awareness about hate crimes, and a declaration that the federal government takes hate crimes seriously. While the information gathered about hate crimes has been of limited value to law enforcement, due to incomplete reporting from the states and the use of varying definitions of what constitutes a hate crime, the HCSA sends a powerful message.
That was the hope of Joan Weiss, then-executive director of the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence. “It will take many years of national reporting before we have a meaningful data base,” she said in 1989. “But we need to start right away so Americans realize we have a serious problem with hate crimes.”
No Women or Children
The symbolic value of hate crime legislation is illustrated by two groups left out of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act’s list of protected categories: women and children. The coalition of Jewish, black, homosexual, ethnic, and nationality groups lobbying for passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act opposed adding gender for a curious reason. As Jacobs and Potter point out,
[M]isogynistic violence against women is so prevalent, its inclusion would overwhelm the other species of hate crime. In other words, at this symbolic level, groups perceive themselves to be in competition with one another for attention.
The exclusion of children is striking. There are some three million reports of child abuse every year and, as the authors of Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics suggest, some percentage of attacks on children must be related to prejudice. “Nothing,” they write, “could more poignantly demonstrate what we mean by ‘the social construction of hate crime’” than the exclusion of children from the HCSA roster of protected groups.
“Protected Group” Status Is What Counts
The absence of women as a protected group under the HCSA angered feminists. Molly Yard, then-president of the National Organization for Women told a congressional hearing that gathering national data on incidences of rape and domestic violence is not enough.
[C]ategorization of such crimes as hate crimes is necessary in order for law enforcement personnel, legislators, educators, and the public at large to truly understand not just the full scope and complexity of the problem, but the motivation behind these crimes.
More important, it seems, than the actual crime data, which was already being collected, was the designation of women as hate crime victims. But while women and children lost out in the grievance sweepstakes, homosexuals won the jackpot. The HCSA was, as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force proclaims on its website, “the first federal statute in our country’s history that named and recognized lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”
And, after all, recognition—not fighting crime—is what it is all about. However, for those who are concerned with fighting crime, as well as for law enforcement officials, the task of identifying and prosecuting hate crimes is great indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment