eQualityGiving logo Equality Giving

Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

Federal Hate Crimes legislation is critical to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans. It was signed into law by President Obama in 2009.

 

BACKGROUND

Since 1968, there has been a federal Hate Crimes law that penalizes violent crimes against individuals due to their race, religion and national origin. In 2005 legislation extending those protections to include gender, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression was introduced and voted, and then again in 2007, and again in 2009. President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act on October 28, 2009.

 

Federal Hate Crime LegislationHATE CRIMES TODAY: STATUS OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Hate Crimes legislation (HR 1913) was re-introduced in Congress on April 2, 2009.

It passed the House of Representatives on April 29, 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175 as follows:
     - Democrats: 231 in favor, 17 against
     - Republicans: 28 in favor, 158 against

It was signed into law by President Obama on October 28, 2009, days after it was passed by the Senate. 

 

Similar legislation in Congress in 2005 and 2007 with the following results:

> In 2005, it was approved by the House of Representatives by 223 to 199. It was never presented for a vote in the Senate.

> In 2007, it was reintroduced and passed the House of Representatives on May 3, 2007 by a vote of 237 to 180. It passed the Senate on September 27, 2007 by a vote of 60 to 39. All Democrats, the two independents and nine Republicans voted in favor (the only Senator not voting was John McCain. Senator Larry Craig voted against this legislation). The Democrats did not submit this legislation to president Bush for signature (or veto).

  

HATE CRIMES LAWS IN INDIVIDUAL STATES

  • LGBTQ Americans were not protected against hate crimes in 19 states prior to passing the federal law in October 2009
  • Sexual orientation and gender identy/expression were covered in only 14 states
  • Sexual orientation only was protected in 17 states


HATE CRIME INCIDENTS

Below are the official annual FBI hate crime statistics for offenses based solely on the real or perceived sexual orientation of the victim:

  • 2006  - a total of 1,472 victims
  • 2005  - a total of 1,213 victims
  • 2004 - a total of 1,482 victims
  • 2003  - a total of 1,479 victims
  • 2002  - a total of 1,513 victims
  • 2001  - a total of 1,664 victims 


WHO COMMITS HATE CRIMES

The FBI statistics show that in 2006 there were 1,472 victims of hate crimes due to sexual orientation (the bureau does not track gender identity/expression). Those crimes were committed by 1,415 offenders identified by race as follows:

  • 44% were white
  • 17% were black
  • 5% were other races
  • 34% were unknown offender or unknown race

HATE CRIME DEBATE

The Religious Right opposes hate crimes legislation based on the following arguments:

  1. CLAIM: A crime is already penalized. No needed to penalize more because the motivation was hate.
    The fundamentalists say that if the victim is killed, the penalty should be for killing somebody independently of the motivation.
    REALITY: Penalties imposed by the judicial system are usually based on motivation. If someone kills somebody by accident the penalty is less severe than if there was premeditation. Likewise, the penalty should be different when the motivation was hate.

  2. CLAIM: Sexual orientation is for a special group and therefore it does not need to be protected.
    REALITY:
    The law already protects other special groups subject to attack (for example due to religious beliefs). The law needs to protect sexual orientation and gender identity/expression victims, because about the same number of them are attacked per year as people are attacked due to religious beliefs.

  3. CLAIM: Sexual orientation is a choice (is not innate), so it should not be protected.
    REALITY:
    Science demonstrates that sexual orientation is innate. But even if it were a choice it should be protected since religious beliefs (which are clearly a choice) are already protected.

  4. CLAIM: Pastors may be tried under this legislation if after giving a sermon a member of the congregation, motivated by the speech, commits a hate crime.
    REALITY: This legislation explicitly includes First Amendment protections towards speech. Hate crimes legislation is about actions and bodily harm against somebody. Speech is still protected, even hateful speech.

  5. CLAIM: The federal government will be interfering with the local police.
    REALITY:
    This legislation has been endorsed by virtually all major law enforcement organizations (including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, etc.). Police understands the hideousness of these crimes and want to add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the federal hate crime laws.

 

 

 
CLICK to email this page to your list

POST AND PARTICIPATE [how to post]

Click to Post
From An ally in NJ [159.91.126.180] - Dec. 1, 2009 6:24 PM

While I am vehemently for LGBTQ rights in all forms, I feel I must justify those who oppose hate crime legislation. While I concur that most of the arguments made on this page are legitimately deconstructed, and most of the arguments made by the right wing in this country reek of homophobia, the claim that crimes are already punished by the law and therefore legislating based on motivation in this sense is wrong is a different animal altogether. Yes, motivations are punished differently, but it is motivation in the sense of planning. Different penalties exist for premeditated murder than, say, vehicular manslaughter, but the motive for the murder does not determine the punishment. Premeditated first degree murder is premeditated first degree murder, no matter the motivation.

Hate crimes are heinous, to be sure. But the law must necessarily remain separate from moralizing in this way, because morals are not universal, and the law must be. If I kill a man because of his religion, race, or sexual orientation, he is no more or less dead than if I had killed him because he slept with my wife. When we start legislating based on a person's thoughts, we have crossed a line that should never be crossed. Putting aside objections that we can never truly prove a person's motivations, even if he claims he committed a crime out of hate, it would still be wrong to punish someone for their thoughts. If we punish them for their actions - and I'm counting planning as an action for these purposes - that is fine. But we cannot punish someone for their beliefs, regardless of whether their beliefs are hateful or not. It would be just as wrong to punish someone for being of a race or religion.

We cannot have the government doling out punishment for thoughts, even if those thoughts lead to crimes. We may punish the crimes, of course, but to conflate the two is a huge mistake, in my opinion. 

I add that I am a jew, and that I have seen, both personally and in my history, a great deal of antisemitism. Still, though, I would say that the punishment is merited by the crime itself, and not by the motivation. The degree of planning is a separate issue. I would hold the nazis accountable for their evil, but I feel that the punishment should not be worsened by the antisemitism. The job of the government is to punish a crime, not a thought. Every time I hear about hate crime legislation, I start to fear big brother.

I reiterate that I am an ally, and I support equal rights for everyone. But that includes the deluded souls who commit crimes, because even if they are terrible people, they are still people, and I believe that all beliefs, no matter how horrible, should be respected - or, at least, we should respect a person's right to have them.


From Madison Reed - Jun. 26, 2009 9:33 PM

Dear friends,

Were you aware that U.S. Senator Jim DeMint's recently wrote pastors and religious leaders, urging them to rise up and stop the passage of Senate Bill 909 - the pending Senate version of the federal hate crimes legislation?  Read more about it here at my blog.

Madison


Site

Search
Index

User

Login
Register

 
 

Last Modified 2009-12-09