CORRECTION: The vote is scheduled for 10 am today. Thanks, Howard.
Rep. Patricia Todd will be one of the first to speak tomorrow at 1 pm in favor of HB247, which would add sexual orientation to Alabama’s current hate crime law. She invites us all to be there.
I wish there were no need for hate crime laws. It would be nice if no one ever targeted those perceived as gay (or the wrong race, gender, religion, etc.) with the intent to terrorize not only the individual attacked but also others perceived as gay (or the wrong race, gender, religion, etc.). It would also be a good thing if similar crimes were prosecuted in similar ways, regardless of the identity of the victim, but there are still those who believe that “gay panic” is a legitimate excuse for beating the crap out of another human being. And people like this woman.
It’s hard to find reliable statistics on hate crimes against those who are or are perceived to be LGBT. In 1999, the year that Billy Jack Gaither was brutally murdered in Sylacauga, Alabama didn’t bother to report any hate crimes to the FBI. Nor did the state report any hate crimes based on sexual orientation in 2004, the year Scotty Joe Weaver was “beaten, strangled, stabbed, cut, partially decapitated and set on fire” in Bay Minette. But I have far too many friends and acquaintances who have been targeted — some injured, some not — by assailants who just don’t like gay people and like to demonstrate their feelings by beating them up.
If we’re going to have a hate crime law in this state — and this country, for that matter — it should include crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation. We need to stop pretending these crimes don’t take place or, even worse, that they’re somehow justified.
Do you think that any group that can be positively identified as being singled out during the commission of a crime is worthy of hate crime status?
Such as? The current law already addresses crimes motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.
What about other criteria such as wealth? The VaTech killer complained about rich kids in his diatribe that sought to explain his actions. If the bastard were still alive should he be prosecuted for a hate crime?
Hate crimes bills are unnecessary; they are merely belt and suspenders legislation. For example, murder is already illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible regardless of the circumstances of the victim(s). The fact that the assailant disliked some overt trait about the victims(s) is his first amendment right, however distasteful.
What about wealth? A wealthy victim pretty much guarantees a vigorous prosecution, even if the general population might think the person “got what s/he deserved”.
The criminal justice system has always considered motivation when determining punishment for a crime — mitigating factors, aggravating factors. I think most people consider terrorism-related murders to be more heinous than a robbery gone bad because the intent is to terrorize not just the murder victims but an entire community. Unfortunately, when the community is an already marginalized group of people, it’s far too easy to blame the victim (”black people should know to stay out of that part of town”, “she looks Mexican, so she must be illegal”, “he made a pass at me”, etc.) and let the perpetrator off with a lighter sentence than s/he would have received if the victim had been wealthy and/or influential.
The first amendment does protect a person’s right to say, “I hate gays.” It does not, however, protect that person’s right to gather a group of friends and say, “I hate gays. Let’s go over to the gay bar and kick some ass. That’ll teach those faggots.” And it shouldn’t.
I’m actually of two minds on hate crime laws. On the one hand, pretty much any crime that’s not totally random (i.e. a robbery gone bad) can be traced to personal motivation of some kind. Assault is assault regardless of the motivation. On the other hand, hate crime laws set a societal standard and perhaps serve as a way to get a psycho off the streets (many hate crimes are particularly vicious). On the third hand, our current laws do allow for considering motive when charging someone for a crime. On the fourth hand, having a hate crime law that includes homosexuals would not make me feel any safer for my gay daughter in Alabama.
I do think that adding gays to the hate crime law would do no harm, so it would be a net positive. Anyone who is opposed to adding them as a protected class should be opposed to all hate crime laws.
The vote is at 10am today not 1pm.
I assume it did not pass?
No vote yet. Audio link for the House discussion here. Patricia is speaking right now (11:02 am).
The Budget Isolation Resolution failed, so there was no vote on HB247. It’s effectively dead.