Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, the neanderthals who murdered Matthew Shepherd, are serving life sentences for their crime. They will be in jail the rest of their lives. They are being punished for their heinous crime without the benefit of a federal hate crimes law covering gays.
I have been undecided on hate crimes legislation for some time. But in reading the writings of those pro and con, I have to say I am more persuaded by those con. Those for it don't seem to have much muscle in their arguments.
Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign argues in a
Wash Blade op-ed that hate crimes legislation should be passed because, well, HRC needs a victory. It should be passed, he says, because it is "mature." That doesn't make it right.
Dale Carpenter, a gay professor who was the victim of anti-gay violence himself, argues that the law is no more than symbolic. Saying that supporters of hate crimes laws for gays have failed to cite one crime that has gone unpunished because due to lack of resources,
Carpenter argues that hate crimes legislation would do nothing substantive in deterring crimes against gay people:
We now have almost 40 years of experience with these laws, yet there’s no evidence they have actually reduced hate crimes. A new federal law will not likely deter future violence.
Here’s why. Bias crimes are especially irrational, welling up from deep hatreds, resentments, and fears that law can hardly touch. They're often committed by young males in their teens and early 20s who don’t know the nuances in criminal law and whose animalistic behavior is probably not very responsive to nice legal incentives. Neither the prospect of federal (as opposed to state) prosecution nor the threat of additional time in prison (beyond what the offender would get anyway) will deter bias attacks.
He also makes a point that this symbolic legislation will give Democratic politicians cover from tackling thornier issues of real significance (like the more than 1,000 federal benefits denied to gay couples).
It may give the new Congress a "pass" -- allowing Democrats to say they have done something “pro-gay” and freeing them to avoid the harder and far more consequential questions of military service and protecting gay families in the law. These are issues, unlike hate crimes, about which Congress really can do something of practical value.
Solmonese seems to agree that the bill is symbolic, as he writes of it's "symbolic impact" on opponents. He also takes to task Carpenter's assertion that it will give Congress a "pass:"
We simply do not believe that passing hate crimes “forestalls” other legislation any more than the six o’clock train “forestalls” a later one.
That's a lousy metaphor...politics is not a railroad, where efficiency is prized. It's more like an unsatisfactory Christmas. "Hey, I may not have given you everything you wanted, but I gave you something. Now shut up and eat your turkey." HRC should know this as they've been the leading cheerleader of the "yeah, the Clintons gave us DOMA and DADT but they were nice to us in other ways" mantra.
Finally,
Malcontent argues that:
The sine qua non of the gay-rights movement has been "equality." Yet hate-crimes laws are the very essence of inequity. In singling out favored groups for protection, you must necessarily afford lesser protections to others.
The pro-hate crimes folks have failed to make their case. Hate crimes legislation will likely pass. The real test for the gay rights movement will be what of real consequence we can accomplish.
