More on ‘Hate Crimes’
Law professors James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter make an interesting point:
Laws do not spring forth from a groundswell of public opinion, but rather are the product of lobbying by interested (”interest”) groups that must mobilize support among politicians. The hate crime laws are passed because of the lobbying efforts of organizations that advocate on behalf of blacks, Jews, gays, and lesbians, a few other ethnic and nationality groups, and in some cases, women. …Regardless of what it accomplishes, the passage of legislation boosts morale and the status of the organizations and their constituencies.
That’s from their excellent book on the subject, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 66.
If liberals write laws to “send messages,” can social conservatives do the same thing if they control the legislative assembly? Perhaps enact a criminal law against, say, adultery. Note that the point is not necessarily that the law be actually enforced or have any impact as far as reducing adultery in the jurisdiction. If the point is simply to “send a message,” liberals are going to be hard-pressed to lodge objections to conservative symbolic lawmaking.
For more on hate crimes, go here and here.
One Nation Under Double Jeopardy
The Senate is about to vote on Defense Department funding with an expanded federal “hate crimes” bill. This well-intentioned piece of legislation threatens to make violations of the fundamental right against Double Jeopardy a routine practice, as federal courts will now have the power to re-prosecute defendants for what are traditionally state crimes.
The House removed language that the Senate put in place to ensure that the “hate crimes” provisions did not stretch to encompass free speech, threatening to attach criminal liability to core rights of free expression.
This expansion of federal jurisdiction guarantees that high profile cases will be retried until a guilty verdict is obtained to satisfy political factions. This politicization of justice will only harm our courts and our freedoms. The Senate should vote down this threat to the fundamental rights of all Americans.
Now for some quick background reading:
- “Welcome to the new age of Double Jeopardy.”
- Why hate-crime legislation won’t work.
- Podcast: How hate-crime legislation undermines federalism.
House Approves Hate Crimes Measure
Last night, the House of Representatives approved a defense spending measure that included a totally unrelated bill that would ban so-called “hate crimes.”
I’ve testified twice against federal hate crimes proposals. Here’s the case against the law (in brief):
First, the federal hate crime law is unconstitutional because it is beyond the powers of Congress.
Second, the law will not prevent violent crime. Anyone already inclined to kill or beat up another human being is not going to reverse course because Congress passes a new law against violence motivated by bias.
Third, the law does take the state too close to the realm of thought crimes. In order for a prosecutor to prove the “hate” aspect, detectives have to dig into a person’s life, thoughts, writings, conversations, etc., to gather the “evidence.” There’s no good reason to go there because — let’s remember — violent acts are already against the law!
Hate Crimes Bill Becomes an Amendment
Unsure about prospects on passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a stand-alone bill, proponents intend to attach it as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. As I have said previously, this bill is an affront to federalism and counterproductive hater-aid.
Federal Criminal Law Power Grab
This legislation awards grants to jurisdictions for the purpose of combating hate crimes. It also creates a substantive federal crime of violent acts motivated by the “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.”
This is a federalization of a huge number of intrastate crimes. It is hard to imagine a rape case where the sex of the victim is not an issue. The same goes for robbery – why grab a wallet from someone who can fight back on equal terms when you can pick a victim who is smaller and weaker than you are?
This would be different if this were a tweak to sentencing factors.
If this were a sentence enhancement on crimes motivated by racial animus – a practice sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell – then it would be less objectionable if there were independent federal jurisdiction.
Thing is, the federal government has already done this, with the exception of gender identity, with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (scroll to page 334 at the link):
If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.
The contrast between a sentence enhancement and a substantive crime gives us an honest assessment of what Congress is doing – federalizing intrastate acts of violence.
If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting the use of a firearm or any object that has passed in interstate commerce to commit a violent crime, it would clearly be an unconstitutional abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Minus the hate crime window dressing, that is exactly what this law purports to do.
Hate Crime Legislation: A Shocking Disregard for Federalism
Last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (video at the link) on the proposed federal hate crimes bill showed the dark underbelly of the Senate. The road to undermining the rule of law is being paved with the best of intentions and casual disregard (if not outright hostility) for the principles of limited government and equality under the law.
I raise some objections to the bill in this podcast:
The bill federalizes violent acts against victims by reason of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Never mind that these acts are already prosecuted by the states, and that violent crimes of this nature are universally perceived as an affront to justice. Matthew Shepard, the gay man brutally killed in Wyoming, has provided one of the rallying cries for passage of this legislation. His killers both received two consecutive life sentences from a state court. James Byrd, Jr., the African-American man dragged to death behind a truck in Texas, is cited as another reason to pass the law. His killers received death sentences or life imprisonment.
The federal government would also be authorized to prosecute whenever “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” While this doesn’t violate the letter of the Supreme Court’s Double Jeopardy jurisprudence (the federal and state governments are considered separate sovereigns) it certainly violates its spirit.
The hearing video shows a complete disregard for limitations on federal power. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) claims that we need a “uniform” law across the states (82 minute mark). This claim ignores the fact that 45 states have their own hate crime laws and that violence against others is universally unlawful and routinely prosecuted. It also disregards the fact that general police powers belong to the states, not to the federal government.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) then makes a brief appearance (89 minute mark) to slander opponents of the legislation – how could anyone oppose legislation with such a noble goal? He claims that this is tantamount to saying that it is acceptable to harm people because you do not like who they are.
The problem is that a broad array of actions are implicated as “hate crimes.” Virtually all rapes seem to fall under the new law – it is hard to see how the choice of a rape victim would not implicate their sex. Gail Heriot, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (which came out 6-2 against this legislation), testified that when she consulted with Department of Justice attorneys in previous attempts to pass this legislation, they didn’t seem fazed by this prospect.
Don’t expect the application of this legislation to be the rare and exceptional prosecution that Attorney General Holder promises in his testimony. Janet Cohen testified that her upbringing in a racially divided America decades ago justifies passage of this law. She also proposes that prosecutions with the new law will be “wise” on account of Holder’s “brilliance and integrity.”
And to think, we were once a nation of laws, not of men.
This legislation doesn’t promote the rule of law, it undermines it. Prosecutions that favor one group of victims over another mark the destruction of equality before the law.
The worst facet of the legislation is its counterproductive nature. A real true believer, a hardcore racist or homophobe, would want to be prosecuted under a statute that criminalizes his motives. Prosecution under a murder statute makes him a common criminal; prosecution for murdering someone given special status by the government makes him a martyr for his cause and incites those motivated by his brand of hatred and animus.
This is nothing new. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) criminalized harassment, vandalism and violence against companies that test their products on animals. When seven activists from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty tried to intimidate people associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company engaged in animal testing, they weren’t just prosecuted for stalking. They were prosecuted for conspiracy to violate a federal statute enacted at the behest of their target industry. This made martyrs of the “SHAC 7” and highlighted the undue influence that an industry can exert over government. The focus is now on the propriety of the law used to prosecute someone, not the fact that they unlawfully stalked people engaged in lawful commercial activity.
You don’t defeat politically motivated violence by politicizing the laws used to prosecute it.
Murder is always murder most foul. We criminalize rape, assault, vandalism, and criminal threats because they harm a citizen – not a super-citizen held in some special regard by the government.
For more Cato work on hate crime legislation, go here and here.
New at Cato: Nat Hentoff on Hate Crimes
With the support of President Obama, so-called “hate crime” legislation is on the move in Congress. According to Cato senior fellow Nat Hentoff, laws that punish one time for the crime and another time for the hate violate the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment and protections against Double Jeopardy.
In April, Hentoff spoke at the Cato Policy Perspectives seminar in New York City about the current expansion of hate crime legislation.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets