Orrin's Blog

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Spectrum. -Staff

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism, and harassment -- the offenses typically associated with hate crimes -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

The most oft-repeated example is the story of Matthew Shepard, a young Wyoming man who was savagely beaten and murdered in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. The horrific accounts of Shepard's murder have been detailed countless times as justification for a new federal hate-crimes law. In fact, the Senate hate-crimes bill bears Shepard's name, which is ironic because the story of Matthew Shepard perfectly demonstrates why such a law is unnecessary. Both of Shepard's killers were tried, convicted and sentenced to consecutive life terms in state court for their heinous crime.

Both bills introduced this year would also expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's "gender identity."

At best, this legislation unnecessarily intrudes on the efforts of state governments and creates crimes that are impractical, if not impossible, to prosecute. At worst, it would be unconstitutional.

Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit prosecution for any activities that are protected by the First Amendment, the fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question.

This is not 1960; it is 2009. While violence and criminal activity motivated by prejudice still occur, any claims that state officials continue to turn a blind eye when confronted with such detestable acts are not supported by the evidence. That being the case, there is little justification for delving into the practical and constitutional quagmire this legislation presents.