From Patricia Todd:
The BIR on the Hate Crimes bill failed this morning. The vote was 43-45, but we did make progress. The republicans organized around this issue and ALL of them voted against the BIR, but they did not talk against the bill. We need to thank those who stood with us:
- Speaker Hammet
- Bandy
- Beasley
- Black
- Boyd
- Buskey
- Coleman
- Dukes
- Dunn
- England
- Ford
- Gordan
- Graham
- Grantland
- Guin
- Hall
- Harper
- Hilliard
- Hinshaw
- Holmes
- Howard
- Irons
- Jackson
- Kennedy
- Knight
- Letson
- McCampbell
- McClammy
- Mary Moore
- Charles Newton
- Demetrius Newton
- Page
- John Robinson
- Oliver Robinson
- Rogers
- Salaam
- Schmitz
- Scott
- Thigpen
- Thomas, J
- Todd
- Warren
- White
I’m so going to get creamed for this.
I go back and forth on whether I’m for or against hate crime legislation. I think it’s unfair for one group to have hate crime legislation when other groups do not. At the same time, I think hate crime legislation in general is not necessary. So here lately, I’ve been more likely to say that we should instead do away with all hate crime legislation (as opposed to adding more) in order to keep it fair. The crime doesn’t happen twice just because the victim happens to be black or a woman or gay. At the same time, should a victim be treated as less of such if he is a straight white male? Then we get into the whole messy situation of thought crimes. It’s just not pretty.
I know the supposed purpose in hate crime legislation is to act as a deterrent, but I believe that the laws that are being broken should themselves be the deterrent. I haven’t seen any statistic that tells me that hate crime legislation has reduced hate crimes. I firmly believe that if a person wants to assault another human being badly enough, the law isn’t going to deter them.
You won’t get creamed. I can understand the arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether or not hate crime legislation is necessary. As I noted below, it’s hard to get accurate statistics on the incidence of hate crimes, so it’s difficult to judge the efficacy of the laws.
I know you didn’t mean it this way, but your final statement could be taken as an argument against any laws punishing assault. After all, if the law has no deterrent effect, why have it on the books?
My argument is this: if we’re going to have hate crime legislation, on the state or federal level, it needs to cover groups that are frequently targeted by attacks meant to intimidate and terrorize not just the individual victim but also others who are (or are perceived to be) part of those groups. And that definition most certainly includes people who are attacked because of their perceived sexual orientation.
I won’t cream you. It seems to me that we are skating nearer and nearer to establishing thought crimes all the time.
Someone inclined to anonymous assault can certainly conceive of a hatred for any group—drunken LSU fans, say. Or people with Confederate flag bumper stickers or the ones that say “Proud Parent of a Great Kid!” Are PETA members commiting a hate crime when they thrown red paint at women wearing furs?
That said, taking the way “minority groups” are generally understood in this kind of legislation, certainly “sexual orientation” should be listed along with race, creed and color.
And THAT said, I find it impossible to thank Yvonne Kennedy for anything, unless it’s her resignation as president of Bishop State.