Kathlyn HotynskiRecently, Sens. Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith introduced a piece of legislation called the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,” or “The Matthew Shepard Act.” This bill proposes that the Justice Department be given authority to prosecute crimes committed based upon a person’s “actual or perceived gender or gender identity.”
The reasoning behind this bill, defined in Section 2, is that bias-motivated violence “poses a serious national problem . disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities” and bias-motivated violent crimes damages not only the victim (and the victim’s family and friends), but also “the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.”
Let’s take a look at the claim that violent hate crime is a “serious national problem.” In 2005, only 2,150 of the 1,390,695 crimes reported to the FBI were bias-motivated, constituting less than 1 percent of total reported violent crimes. Judging from this data, it is hard to find
the logic in the bill’s
statement.
Another problematic statement in the bill is that part about “the tranquility and safety of communities” being disrupted by bias-motivated crimes. It is true that such crimes are threats to the security and safety of society, but the same thing is true of all other crimes. Theft, rape, willful property damage, murder – all crime is a threat to our security.
Crimes committed against a person based upon his or her “actual or perceived gender or gender identity” possess no quality that makes such crimes worse than a crime committed against a person for any other reason, and to increase the legal weight of a crime because of said bias is a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Subjective definition also plays a key role in the bill. The bill seeks to make it possible for bias-motivated crimes against some
one’s “gender identity” to be prosecuted. Things like religion, color, and national origin fall under the same umbrella of
government authority.
However, the difference between “gender identity” and those other terms is that religion, color, etc., are all objectively defined clearly and unambiguously. “Gender identity,” according to the bill, is “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.” Such open-ended language leaves the term subjective, which allows plenty of room for interpretation, not to mention abuse.
Speaking of abuse, what constitutes a hate crime? We already know that violence and vandalism are covered, but so is “hate speech,” which is defined as “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.” This definition can be (and is) liberally applied to anything said or written that is potentially offensive, such as Bob referring to Jane as a “dyke,” or a pastor of a church preaching that homosexuality is wrong.
More often than not, it seems that “hate speech” is judged not by whether or not it is truly derogatory, but by whose feelings it hurts. The issue is compounded further when people falsify claims of hate crimes and baselessly accuse others of hate speech solely on the grounds that they “have been offended.” Such behavior diminishes the severity of truly defaming speech and can go so far as to violate the First Amendment rights of others, ironically.
Needless to say, this bill serves no real purpose other than to give special attention to a subjectively defined group and make one group of crimes worse than other violations of the law. The bill is named after Matthew Shepard, a college student in Wyoming who was murdered in 1998 . and he was murdered because he was gay. Right?
Wrong. In 2004, ABC News interviewed Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, the two men who killed Shepard, and it was revealed that the two had been strung out on a methamphetamine binge and needed money so they could continue their habit. On the night of the murder, McKinney was going to rob a local drug dealer of $10,000 worth of meth. This plan fell through, however, and the two found themselves at a local bar, where they encountered Shepard.
Since Shepard was well-dressed, McKinney told ABC it appeared he had a lot of money – money that McKinney and his partner could take. To cut a long story short, the three men left the bar with Shepard under the pretense that the other two were giving him a ride home, drove to the outskirts of the city murdered Shepard.
Shepard was not murdered because he was gay; in the words of the lead investigator, “What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it.” (This story can be read on ABCNews.com.)
In 2000, the New York State Legislature had this to say about bias-motivated crimes: “Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society.”
The truth is that all crimes threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens, and that all violations of the law tear at the fabric of free society. We have laws against wrongs like murder and theft that apply to all citizens regardless of any quality they possess. Giving special preferences to any group is unjust and unconstitutional, and any legislation that would accomplish such needs to be rejected without delay.
McCormick is a freshman English education major and a columnist for The Spectator.
