Categories
Join Us At:
|
Hate Crimes Mark-Up - Round #2So it took two days, but all in all, a very nice result. After fending off all of the poison-pill amendments, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 earlier today. The next hurdle will be a debate and vote in the full House of Representatives, which could happen as early as next week. From there, we’re on to the fun-filled U.S. Senate. Fingers crossed, we’ll be in the White House Rose Garden before the heat and humidity of a DC summer even set in. This stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum though, so I hope all my fellow ACLUers will let their representatives and senators know that protecting civil rights and our 1st Amendment liberties are absolutely not a zero-sum game. As the ACLU’s Legislative Director, Caroline Fredrickson said – The ACLU strongly supports the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as protecting both civil rights and free speech and association. We have found in our experience of fighting for stronger protections for civil rights and free speech and association rights that the two go hand in hand. Vigilant protection of free speech rights historically has opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections. Additionally, last week, I wrote about the tragic murder of Angie Zapata as showing, in a very real way, why it is so important to cover gender identity in the hate crimes legislation (it thankfully does). Just yesterday, the man who brutally murdered 18-year-old Angie was convicted of her death and sentenced to life in prison. As this debate moves forward, I hope that Members of Congress keep people like Angie in their minds. I was delighted to hear Attorney General Eric Holder state just today how important his Justice Department considers hate crimes and express his support for expanding the federal government’s ability to address them. Stay tuned as the debate now moves to the Gang of 435.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 14 Responses to "Hate Crimes Mark-Up - Round #2" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Apr 24th, 2009 at 10:20am
What I find alarming is the trend in segmenting our whole society in the name of 'equality' by continually adding more legislative fluff where there should be common sense. If one commits a crime, make them pay...equally! For you to say that simply because someone, say a trans-gender person, deserves more justice than one of my daughters is right!? That is against everything this country was based on. Separate but equal does NOT promote equality, it harms it by it very nonsensical duplicity. Shameful!
Apr 24th, 2009 at 2:22pm
If your daughter was specificly targeted by bigots Equality I think you might feel diferently.Personaly as someone who once had to help a 15 year old get to the hospital after she had been gang raped and beaten supposedly in order to cure her of being a dyke I think that hate crimes need to be dealt with severely.
Apr 24th, 2009 at 8:25pm
Hate crime legislation isn't about saying that "X" class of people should deserve more justice. It's recognizing the fact that some people are intolerant of others.
Frankly, if someone is targeting violence against another BECAUSE of an inherent trait like gender, religion, sexuality, etc., as opposed to an extrinsic quality (you killed my brother so I'll kill you...), then I'd say that they deserve a stricter punishment.
Hate crime laws are needed in recognition of the fact that some people do precipitate violence in this kind of fashion. It is NOT equal for a transgendered person to be specifically attacked for that reason, and that is what hate crime laws should address.
Apr 25th, 2009 at 9:17am
This federal hate crimes bill is a deliberate, shameful end-run around Constitutional double-jeopardy protections, designed to exploit the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections created by the Supreme Court's controversial 5-to-4 Bartkus decision.
It will allow innocent people who have been acquitted of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court.
It will also allow people who state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because there is no strong evidence against them to be prosecuted in federal court, bankrupting them in the process.
For example, Attorney General Eric Holder has advocated expanded federa; hate-crimes legislation to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.
Advocates of a broad federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke Lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations. Supporters of federal hate-crimes legislation like Janet Reno view it as a way of getting around constitutional protections against double jeopardy, by allowing reprosecution in federal court of people who have already been found innocent in state court.
Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections. So has Gail Heriot, a law professor and member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
The federal hate-crimes bill would violate constitutional federalism safeguards, and it would allow people found innocent in state court to be retried in federal court.
Supporters of the hate-crimes bill have all sorts of rationalizations for disregarding not-guilty verdicts. Hate-crimes activist Brian Levin, who testified before Congress, claims reprosecutions are needed because local jury pools are biased. NOW Legal Defense Fund told Congress that reprosecutions are appropriate if local prosecutors had “inadequate resources” or were of “questionable effectiveness.”
Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”
The defendants in the Duke lacrosse case, charged with an interracial rape, were vindicated by DNA evidence. But their detractors, such as radical activist Alton Maddox (who was involved in the Tawana Brawley hate-crime hoax), continue to insist that they were guilty of hate crimes, and that more hate-crimes laws are needed.
For some people, it seems, hate crimes are so terrible that not even innocence should be a defense. Such people eagerly await passage of the federal hate-crimes bill.
Apr 25th, 2009 at 10:46am
How about the hate crimes against Christians preaching the Bible on the streets of Philadelphia? Freedom of speech? I think not. Freedom of religion? I think not. The only hate crimes are those against favored minorities of this Agnostic Crooked Liberals Union
Apr 25th, 2009 at 11:46am
This federal hate crimes bill is a dangerous end-run around Constitutional double-jeopardy protections, allowing prosecutors to exploit the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections created by the Supreme Court’s controversial 5-to-4 Bartkus decision.
It will allow innocent people who have been acquitted of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court.
It will also allow people who state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because there is no strong evidence against them to be prosecuted in federal court, bankrupting them in the process.
For example, Attorney General Eric Holder has advocated expanded federa; hate-crimes legislation to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.
Advocates of a broad federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke Lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations. Supporters of federal hate-crimes legislation like Janet Reno view it as a way of getting around constitutional protections against double jeopardy, by allowing reprosecution in federal court of people who have already been found innocent in state court.
Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections. So has Gail Heriot, a law professor and member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
The federal hate-crimes bill would violate constitutional federalism safeguards, and it would allow people found innocent in state court to be retried in federal court.
Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”
Apr 26th, 2009 at 5:12pm
We can pass all the legislation we want about punishment for hate crimes but that will not force the instances of hate crimes being committed. The problem is a societal one and we must look at the socialization of children to find the source of the majority of hate crimes. We as a people need to teach children to be respectful of everyone and to accept other peoples’ ways of life. If we had done that then maybe that poor 15 year old girl would never have been targeted for such a horrible act. The fact that our society created the idea that things like homo-sexuality is a disease that needs to be cured is absolutely despicable. Also I doubt that the girl will ever like men in any way after being gang raped in such a way.
Apr 26th, 2009 at 9:09pm
Equality is right.
Hate crime legislation is thought crime. It is not right to give someone a tougher sentence because of what they were thinking when they committed the crime. If someone commits a premeditated murder, that person should be charged the same as everyone else who commits the same crime; what the perpetrator was thinking should not be considered in the sentencing.
If my daughter was killed and raped by a jealous ex-boyfriend I would be enraged if he was not sentenced the same as someone who murdered a lesbian in the same way.
Apr 27th, 2009 at 12:49pm
Patriot - What hate crime? Were the people targeted because of their religion or their actions?
Do you know what happened to them? Their rights were upheld and all charges dropped. My guess is that the ACLU would have supported them had they been asked. That is what the ACLU does.
Apr 30th, 2009 at 7:39pm
Well Dan, I agree in the sense that hate-crime laws exist to recognize prejudicial acts, but the fact of the matter is that not every denomination is protected individually. Hate-crime legislation only applies to race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. (gender might be also, forgive me if I'm forgetting any) The FFF organization (Future of Freedom Foundation) makes a very good point... "Nazis and white supremacists are unpopular and generally despised by most Americans -- and rightly so. Suppose a Nazi activist is peacefully demonstrating in support of white supremacy, in a public place near a predominantly minority community center. A person attending the community center who is a member of a racial minority becomes incensed at the actions of the Nazi. He assaults and brutally beats the Nazi. Police arrest the assailant and charge him with assault and battery. Should this be classified as a hate crime and thus be subjected to a more severe penalty? After all, the assault was motivated by a visceral hatred for Nazis and their beliefs. Or are there politically correct and incorrect forms of hatred?"
May 1st, 2009 at 5:31pm
I certainly share the concerns that others have expressed here. A crime is a crime, no matter who is involved. The end-run around double jeopardy is obviously unconstitutional, and this needs to be corrected. And thought crimes are abhorrent to any sane person. Even so, I have to support the legeslation.
I am a quiet, law abiding gay man who has been attacked several times in my life simply because others perceived that I was gay. This is a common experience among LGBT people.
I believe that many gays are accutely sensitive to the dangers of 'thought crimes' because we grew up in a time when being gay was in itself a thought crime.
The reason we need these laws is simple deterrence. Hate crime laws just might save lives. They may prevent some violent homophobes from attacking people who happen to be gay.
But personally, they make me uncomfortable too. I hope that someday they will be obsolete and be disgarded. Until then, I need all the protection from zealots that I can get.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:12pm
Headshake.... and "Equal Justice Under The Law" takes another hit.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:26pm
Hate crime legislation is ridiculous. Giving someone a harsher sentence because of their motives is despicable. How anyone can support this is beyond me. Is a straight man attacking a gay man so much worse than a straight man attacking a straight man?
Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:42am
logic, are you not encouraging this way of thinking and allowing the hate to continue? it may not cause a change of heart but it may make the crime rates drop if people got harsher punishments for crimes against an idea like sexuality.