"I hear that argument all the time: special rights for special people. It's not even the point. What this does is bring us up to a level of equality in prosecution . . . Personal bias in officers and prosecution is absolutely indicative of what's going to happen sometimes. Not always, but sometimes. And we need the vehicle to be able to address it somehow. And the crimes that are committed as hate crimes? They're meant to send a message to a community, not to an individual. It's a totally different type of crime."
—Judy Shepard on The Rachel Maddow Show. She was asked how she would respond to those who think that the justice department shouldn't get involved in hate crimes or that those protected under hate-crime laws are being "privileged" over victims of violent crimes that weren't committed because of bias. Shepard also responded to North Carolina Republican representative Virginia Foxx's claim that Shepard's son Matthew wasn't killed because he was gay.
To watch the video to find out what the bill that may become a law actually does, read more.
Get Flash to see this player.
The Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, or LLEHCPA) expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The bill also:
- Removes the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school
- Gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
- Provides $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes
- Requires the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people (statistics for the other groups are already tracked)
Pilgrim
Just Cavalli
Meltin Pot
With all due respect to Judy Shepard, all violent crime is "hate" crime. That dude Maddow may have wanted to present both sides.
1I believe a hate crime enhancement is necessary in some cases. Yes, all violent crime contains some element of malevolence. I'm not devaluing the pain and hurt caused by violent crimes in general. But because there are certain prejudices that target certain groups, and have a history of being discriminated against in other ways - something more is needed.
Charging it as a separate crime is kind of senseless to me, but the enhancements really do send a message to the public - this is no "ordinary" violent crime. It was motivated by something more than greed, envy, or whatever. It was motivated by how another person acts or looks. In addition to not tolerating crime, we will not tolerate crimes against individuals based on characteristics they cannot change. That's all I really have to say about it.
I hadn't even thought about the personal bias in the justice system - I mean of course I know they exist, but I don't know if that should be more for the criminal or for the law enforcement side. Not sure if that argument is directed properly...
2Yes, I believe it is necessary.
3Totally necessary. A man was just convicted last week of killing a transgender woman in my state and luckily was also found guilty of committing a hate crime. I agree all violent crime is a hate crime, but unfortunately as long as a good portion of our general public still has bias against certain groups, these laws need to be enacted.
4I have mixed feelings about this. What IF he wasn't killed because he was gay? Do we have proof that he was killed because he was gay or do we just know that he was gay? Unless someone shouts it out, for witnesses to hear, that said victim is being killed because he or she is gay, we're all just speculating that every gay person to die an unnatural death is a victim of a hate crime.
5By the way, is there an additional penalty if 'hate crime' is added to the charge? I don't get it. Dead is dead. The person responsible for the death should be tried. Why is one victim seemingly more important than the other?
"Why is one victim seemingly more important than the other? "
Exactly my thought. If someone murdered my straight WASP sister, do they deserve less of a punishment than if they killed a gay or black person because of their sexual orientation or race? In my opinion, no.
6"And the crimes that are committed as hate crimes? They're meant to send a message to a community, not to an individual. It's a totally different type of crime"
I disagree with that statement. And i disagree with the hate crime bill alltogether. All Hate crimes arent nessasarily because the person "hated" the victim or what they were (gay, transgendered, black, jewish) so how do you differentiate between a "regular" crime and a "hate" crime, you are in fact telling someone that thier THOUGHTS are a crime and thats bordering on some serious big brother stuff.
Who gets to decide whether or not the crime you commited deserves harsher punishment because of what they think you were thinking?
thats dangerous
7Absolutely necessary.
8Why absolutely?
9I'd just like to point out that every crime that involves a group that has been marginalized or suffered discrimination in other ways is NOT considered a hate crime. It is very rare that a particular crime even can rise to the level of a hate crime, so it's not like people take this lightly, or are trying to "devalue" one crime over another.
People are still charged with committing criminal activity, the hate crime portion is simply an enhancement in the punishment phase. And as far as I know, it's not that big of an enhancement - maybe the difference between parole and no parole, or an extra 5-10 years [but sometimes that can get commuted for good behavior and such]. Most of the time people are only convicted of the criminal activity, because defense attorneys use the same arguments against the hate crime portion that have been voiced here.
10But by placing an "enhancement in the punishment phase," you actually are devaluing one crime over another, or just placing more value on one victim over another.
11Consider stars in Hollywood. Do you think more value is placed on their lives than regular Joe's and Jane's? I certainly do. So here we are, going Hollywood by putting more value on a victim because he or she is gay, black, etc. Believe me, I have no issue with people serving time for their crimes, but why are we (majority women here) okay with some rapist/murderer getting parole and 'the regular amount of time' in prison because his victim was 'just some white girl'?
I'll tell you what this seems like to me: affirmative action has arrived in crime and punishment.
So sad.
12What she said was unconscionable; however, once again, Tres Sugar, you do an abominable sub-standard job of reporting. She did apologize after the fact and you fail to mention this. This DOES NOT excuse what she did; I want to make this clear. You also OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the bill. That bill limits FREE SPEECH. It also punishes someone defending themselves. Please read below my note. We should educate each other. A bill needs to be written without harming our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Just because the media reports one good thing about a badly written bill, doesn't make you horrible for not supporting the bill. The bill should NOT be passed as is. Do you want Big Brother watching your every move? Do you want the government taking away your freedom of speech? Lets pass a bill that doesn't blatantly ignore The Constitution.
Excerpt from Human Events:
"Congressman Louie Gohmert, a former judge, told Human Events about the radical nature of this so-called hate crimes bill and what happened when House Republicans tried to amend the bill so it did NOT OFFER PROTECTION TO PEDOPHILES.
Take the time to read it... the sheer absurdity of what Gohmert describes will make your skin crawl.
"'When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn't include something like a pedophile... that was voted down on party lines... there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia.'"
"Gohmert pointed out the absurdity of the legislation as written which would warrant the prosecution of a woman under the federal hate crimes statues if she hits a flasher with her purse after he exposed himself to her. Exhibitionism is a protected sexual orientation under this bill.
"'The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor,' Gohmert said. 'The one who hit with the purse singled him out because he's an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time.'"
Time is short. If we don't act today, we may be unable to stop this Orwellian legislation from becoming law."
And I just gave you only a little food for thought. This is just a start to implore you all to read this bill and not take the media's word as absolute.
I challenge Tres Sugar to start being objective. If you want to bring politics to this site, start being responsible journalists.
13Red77, nowhere in this post have I actually stated my opinion — there's a quotation from Judy Shepard, and the context in which it was stated — so I'm not sure how I could be accused of not being "objective." As you can see from the link, I also did a post in which I quoted, without commentary but rather facts, what Virginia Foxx stated, which is that tying the hate crimes bill to Matthew Shepard was a "hoax" because he wasn't killed for being gay. He was in fact targeted and killed for being gay. It's part of public record. As for how this bill will limit free speech — I'm not sure what you're referring to. The bill is described here and includes threatening someone such that they fear bodily harm — not a protected form of speech no matter who you are targeting. And pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Big Brother, finally, is only going to watch your final move if that includes threatening to or actually committing violent acts against people.
14Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.