Hate Crimes Laws Pose Serious Problems

The latest attempt to impose a dangerous federal hate crimes law has been forestalled at least for the time being. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the hate crimes bill amendment out of a defense spending bill.

The Senate is the last line of defense against passage because the House has already passed the “Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”  The deviousness of the Senate in trying to foist this bill upon the public goes beyond sticking it into the bill to fund our armed forces.

The bill’s title “The Matthew Shepherd Act Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” is even a misrepresentation of fact. As you might remember Shephard was a homosexual who was brutally beaten and left tied to a fence post to die in 1998. Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney were convicted for his killing and both were charged with hate crimes.

In a follow-up story by ABC News’ 20/20 Henderson said that he and McKinney had been on crystal methamphetamine for days and targeted Shephard because they thought he was rich. Shephard’s homosexuality had nothing to do with the assault; they attacked him to steal money to buy more drugs.

Rather than justifying a hate crimes bill the Shephard case emphasizes the serious problems that these laws will create for law enforcement in terms of evidence gathering and for juries that must render a verdict based on evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt. In future cases where a drunk or dope head kills a homosexual the prosecution will have to prove to the jury that the crime was committed because of hatred toward a special protected class.

The jury will be left trying to read the mind of the defendant to figure out whether or not it was hate-motivated or motivated by the desire to take someone’s money to buy more alcohol or drugs.

There are constitutional problems with this bill as well. By affording special protection to some specific groups but not to others the bill appears to violate the 14th Amendments guarantee of equal protection under the law a clause that asserts that all people will be treated the same by our legal system. There are serious concerns that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech freedom of the press and freedom of religion will be threatened by this bill. And there are federalism issues involved because the constitution leaves the prosecution of almost all criminal offenses including crimes against persons and property to the jurisdiction of the states.

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that the law will only be applied to acts of violence but not to speech. But a closer examination of the bill and particularly the debate over the House version of the bill causes many people to conclude that speech could be prosecuted as well.

During the debate over the bill in the House Judiciary Committee a specific question was raised as to whether or not such hate crimes law could be used against ministers. When Rep. Louie Gohmert (R – TX) asked “If a minister was giving a sermon a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” According to the Liberty Counsel a Christian legal advocacy group Rep. Artur Davis (D – AL) a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a supporter of the hate crimes bill admitted that under this law a minister could be charged.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that freedom of religion would be a great risk is the fact that an amendment to provide specific safe guards was rejected.  Rep. Mike Pence (R – IN) another member of the House Judiciary Committee attempted to add an amendment that would have protected the freedom of speech and religion for clergy as well as lay people. The amendment stated “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.” The Democrat majority voted the amendment down.

It is interesting to note that even though the hate crimes bill protects racial minorities a coalition of African-American clergy the High Impact Leadership Coalition opposes the bill because they believe it will be used “to muzzle the church” and would have “a chilling effect” on speech and religious liberty.

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that whatever perceived threats to our constitutional rights these laws are justified because they will provide needed protections against acts of violence committed against certain groups of people based on their race color ethnicity sexual orientation and gender orientation. 

In fact federal crime statistics indicate that hate crimes are so rare that there is no need for such an intrusive federal law. In the end a federal hate crimes law will have little impact on reducing crime but as the African-American clergy pointed out they may very well have a chilling effect on our freedom.

Gary Palmer is  president of the Alabama Policy Institute a non-partisan non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets limited government and strong families which are indispensable to a prosperous society.