Hate Crimes Laws Are Not Special Protection

As usual, I’m quite a few days - wait, no, weeks (hell, almost a month now) - behind on things. That’s the problem I have working a full-time job, and burying myself in writing fiction. I never seem to live in the real world - it’s either the world of ammonia plant procedures, or the invented world of my next novel. Occasionally, I scan the notebook I always carry with me and find notes on something I want to write about - this time, it happened to be a few notes on the Hate Crimes bill that passed last month.

Of course, here in Doo-Dah there were the inevitable letters to the editor, and comments on the newspaper site, about how this hate crimes bill passage was just about giving gay and transgendered people special government protection, and that it would put the kibosh on preachers speaking out against the sin of “Teh Gay.”

On the matter of silencing preachers speaking out against gay people, I have a two word rebuttal: Fred Phelps. In a post by the Slacktivist, he explains why this is the best rebuttal to this quasi-fear. But I’ll paraphrase it: essentially, Fred Phelps has been running about saying nasty things about gay people in highly inappropriate places like funerals, schools, memorial services, etc. Phelps’ actions have never landed him in jail and he remains free and his gums keep flapping. Arguing that the hate crimes bill is going to put a less aggressive preacher in jail only makes sense if that preacher plans on being worse than Fred Phelps - and the only way to get worse than Fred Phelps is to actually commit a hate crime, or encourage someone else to commit a hate crime. So, don’t worry homophobes, the hate crimes bill won’t be able to shut you up. You can still call gay people names and make up silly stories about their lifestyles without threat of jail time.

Now, on to the part of about this hate crime bill creating a special, protected class of people. People who make this argument also tend to argue that there are already laws out there against assault and battery and murder. Aren’t these laws good enough to protect gay people, and why do gay people need a something more? they ask.

Aside from the obvious suggestion that the people who make this argument must be planning to smack around a gay person that looks at their butt a little too long, these people really do miss the point of a hate crimes law and the difficulty in proving it. They seem to think that anyone who assaults or kills a gay person will automatically be slapped with a hate crime. Hogwash.

When it comes to killing someone, we make distinctions in a court of law. There are degrees of “homicide” as it were: First, Second and Third degree murder, manslaughter. And then we take into account the killer’s mental capacity, whether or not it was self-defense, or done to protect another person (cops who kill criminals that threaten the lives of others aren’t charged with anything). We even take into account whether or not the killing was an isolated incident or part of a wider plan, such as a terrorist plot - and this is where the Hate Crimes law fits in.

A prosecutor will have to prove that the accused person’s intent arose out of his hatred and fear of gay people. That’s the way our legal system works. If someone is the kind of turd-nugget that would beat someone up for stepping on his foot, that TN can’t be charged with a hate crime just because the victim is gay. Still is just regular old assault. But if some homophobe beats up a gay person because the victim is gay, well, that’s assault and a Hate Crime - but it’ll still have to be proven in court.

What it boils down to is this: intent. If a criminal’s intent is simply to steal or kill for some kind of personal gain then the victim’s sexual orientation, or even the victim’s race, won’t matter: the victim simply had something the attacker wants, a car, money, a pair of shoes, a huge life insurance policy, and the crime was done solely to obtain that item. If the attacker has the intent to punish, or terrorize, an individual because that person represents a certain class of people (gay, black, asian, jewish, whatever), and the obtaining of money, shoes, etc, is secondary, then that’s a hate crime. The intent isn’t about immediate personal gain, but about sending a message to a collection of people that they are not safe, that they are not respected or tolerated, and that their well-being are at risk unless they leave or change or “behave.”

The people who beat and killed Matthew Shepard committed a hate crime because they set out specifically to harm a gay person. So, unless this country’s apparently large population of bigots plan on doing something as horrendous and heinous and vile as killing Matthew Shepard, or the lynching of James Byrd, Jr , they can continue to be first rate assholes without fear of jail time or censorship.

Sad, but true.