Saint Joseph’s Preparatory School

Philadelphia, PA

The Government and Hate Crimes
Teacher: Mr. Conners

Robert DeFelice

 

            Often referred to as bias crimes, hate crimes are criminal actions intended to harm or intimidate people because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other minority group status.  Established to combat this behavior is a hate crimes law passed in 1969 that bans the use of force or threat of force against a person “because of his race, color, religion or national origin.”  Under this law, federal prosecution of hate crimes is very limited; in addition, the assailant must intend to prevent the victim from exercising a federally protected right.  With federal jurisdiction not covering cases that involve crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability, states continue to play the primary role in prosecuting hate crime violence: twenty-one states include mental and physical disability in their lists, and twenty-two states include sexual orientation.  In essence, the federal government must begin to seriously recognize the variety of hate crimes in our modern world and change legislation in order to have jurisdiction in addressing those cases, in which local authorities are either unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute.

            Government regulation is primarily needed to send a powerful message out to those who contemplate these acts, as a sign that the government will not tolerate infringement on another’s right to liberty and security.  Furthermore, according to the FBI’s most recent Hate Crimes Statistics Report, the number of bias-crimes is rising yearly.  For example, in 1999, 7,876 bias-motivated incidents were reported, compared to 7,775 in 1998.  With these statistics, legitimate regulation should be expanded to include minority-groups, due to the hate crime’s devastating effects.  For example, about a month after twenty-one year old Matthew Shepherd, a


 

homosexual, was pistol-whipped and lashed to a fence on a rural Wyoming road in subfreezing temperatures, Rita Hester, a thirty-four year old transsexual woman in Aliston, Mass., was stabbed some twenty times, also due to her sexuality.  This sort of brutal activity should not be taking place in a free country, although because it does happen, broader hate-crime laws need to be passed in order to send a strict message to the perpetrators.  In regards to the psychological effects, any victim of a serious crime is at risk for much distress, but the problems associated with hate crimes appear to last longer than for random crimes.  In Dr. Herek's study, crime-related psychological problems dropped substantially among survivors of non-bias crimes within approximately two years after the crime.  Hate crime victims, however, continued to have higher levels of depression, stress, and anger for as long as 5 years after their victimization occurred.  Most importantly, the communities asking to be represented in this law stress the need to feel the government supporting them.  In a world filled with chauvinism, ignorance, and homophobia, minority communities need to feel a strong sense of equality; this law affords them that.

            The primary conservative argument lies within the idea that hate crime laws are by nature unfair because they accord some victims more government protection under the law than others.  Given the perspective and history of oppression with the minorities represented, these laws do not overextend these groups’ rights over the limit.  Rather, they par with the equality and comfort the mainstream majority feels.  Also, it is interesting that conservatives have no intention of demolishing the 1969 law already in place, which leads one to the natural conclusion that they hold some bias towards groups not included in the older law.  President Bush, leader of the free world as well as a representative of the Republican party, opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays. His reasoning relates to the next proponent in the anti-hate crimes legislation: Christians, especially those that teach that homosexuality is a sin based on the Bible.  This presents a chilling effect, in their eyes, on religious liberty.  Since psychology has proven that homosexuality is not chosen, the Christian prejudice is archaic, illogical, and unfair.  Finally, there are arguments from modern libertarians, who feel that what really is being punished is a criminal’s thoughts, however objectionable they may be.  The actions - incitement, vandalism, assault, murder – are already against the law. This may be true, but unless the government takes a proactive role in this matter, many individuals are never going to stop committing these bias crimes.

            Besides monetary costs attached to hate crime laws, there mainly resides the issue of finding reasonable evidence implying that a person is guilty of hating a certain group.  To successfully prosecute a crime, a D.A. would need to most likely search the grounds of the Defendant, and from there, convince a judge or jury with the motive of hate.  The costs involved here are the potential loss of some privacy and a lack of the right to free speech.  Given that there are various types of hate crimes that could potentially be committed though, ranging from assault to homicide, etc., the exact nature of the costs would potentially be different in every case.

            With the evidence of hate crime taking place and growing each year, it is the government’s duty to regulate prohibiting a certain behavior of people.  While many feel that this may be a mammoth infringement on rights, the total amount of good done by the law would essentially outweigh the bad.  Many fear over-regulation, although on this issue there is nothing to be afraid of, that is, if you do not commit a crime.  In a society filled with hate, acting upon it is essentially the crime, rather than the thoughts themselves.  The law would merely add protection.

            As of right now, there are no current bills being considered in Congress to broaden the federal hate crime policy.  This stems from the Republican control in the White House; under consideration during Bill Clinton’s latter term was “The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999,” which was passed by the Senate but ultimately vetoed.  The future itself is mostly unclear, but certainly things are beginning to simmer within various communities.  The ACLU, as well as various other groups, are fighting for the rights they feel people deserve.  On the other hand, their proponents fight just as strongly, as is the American way.  In closing, the federal government must seriously begin recognizing the variety of hate crimes and change legislation in order to have specific and fair jurisdiction in addressing those cases.

 

   End Notes

[i] Ph.D. Gregory M. Herek, “Stop Hate Crimes,” Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, 1997. <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes.html>.

 [ii] Baptist Press, “Hate Crimes Measure Dropped,” Marantha Christian Journal, 25 October, 1999.  <http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3550.htm>

 [iii] Ricco Villanueva Siasoco, “Defining Hate Crimes,” Infoplease, 18 August 1999.

<http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hatecrimes.html>

 [iv] Ricco Villanueva Siasoco

 [v] Hate Crimes, “History,” Civil Rights, 1999.   <http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/history/>

 [vi] FBI, “Hate Crime Statistics,” Press Release, 18 November, 1999.

 [vii] Lisa Meyer, “The Hidden Hate Epidemic,” Advocate, 25 May, 1999.

 [viii] Ph.D. Gregory M. Herek, “Hate Crimes Study,” Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, 1997.

<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study.html>

 [ix] George W. Bush, “George W. Bush on the Issues,” About.com, 2000.

<http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/e2000/blbush.htm?htm?terms=Hate+Crime>

 [x] Baptist Press

 [xi] American Psychological Association, “Answers to your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality,” APA Public Affairs. <http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html>

 [xii] Christine Niles, “Hate Crime Legislation is Hateful,” The Observer, University Wire, 14 February, 2002.

 [xiii] Ricco Villanueva Siasoco

    

Works Cited

 

American Psychological Association. “Answers to your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” APA Public Affairs. <http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html>

Baptist Press.  “Hate-Crimes Measure Dropped, Setback For Homosexual Rights.” Marantha Christian Journal. 25 October, 1999 <http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3550.htm>

Barillas, C. “Pataki Signs New York Hate Crimes Bill.” Datalounge. 11 July 2000 <http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=8520>

Bush, George W. “George W. Bush on the Issues.” About.com. 2000.

<http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/e2000/blbush.htm?htm?terms=Hate+Crime>

Duggan, Paul.  “Texas Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill Similar Legislation, Opposed by Conservatives, Failed During Bush's Governorship.” The Washington Post.  8 May, 2001.

FBI. “Hate Crime Statistics.” Press Release. 18 November, 1999.

Hate Crimes. “History,” Civil Rights, 1999. <http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/history/>

Herek, Gregory M.  “Hate Crimes Study.” Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men.  1997.  <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study.html>

Herek, Gregory M. “Stop Hate Crimes!” Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men.  1997.  <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes.html>

Levin, Brian; Fein, Bruce.  “Symposium: Q: Does American need a federal hate-crime law?” Vol. 14, Insight on the News. Pp24.  23 November, 1998.

Meyer, Lisa. “The Hidden Hate Epidemic.” Advocate.  25 May, 1999.

Niles, Christine. “Hate Crime Legislation is Hateful.” The Observer, University Wire. 14 February, 2002.

Siasoco, Ricco Villanueva.  “Defining Hate Crimes.” Infoplease. 18 August, 1999.

<http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hatecrimes.html>

Tranum, Sam.  “Hate crime bill dies; House committee puts proposal on indefinite hold.” Charleston Daily Mail.  Pp 1C.  26 February, 2002.

Wellford, Charles F.  “Hate crime.”  World Book Encyclopedia.  1 January, 2002.

Questions

Q1- What is the only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane according to the unknown author?

ANSWER: There is only one way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane and that is to harden the cockpit.  There should be no way to get in short of explosives, and nobody goes in or out during a flight.  Some aircraft redesign will be required, and it will cost, but it will be less than the cost of not doing it.

Q2- What are the arguments given by lobbyists for the Bells in favor of HR 1542 (Tauzin-Dingell Bill) and arguments given by their opponents against this legislation?

ANSWER: Supporters of the bill are convinced that it would speed deployment of broadband services and help jump-start the information technology sector.  Many groups argue that their members need regulatory relief to compete with cable television companies and other high-speed Internet providers.  Opponents contend that the Tauzin-Dingell bill would give the bells a stranglehold on high-speed Internet service and delay the development of next-generation Web technology.

Q3- Why do small-business groups like HR 1831? From the small amount of information presented in your required reading, do you think the legislation is a good idea? Why?
ANSWER: Small-business groups like HR 1831 because they are being protected from lawsuits by large polluters that want to recover some of their government-mandated cleanup costs.  In my opinion this is a good idea, as gives necessary and deserved protection to smaller businesses from more powerful organizations.

Q4- Give an argument in favor of government regulating activities such as rollerblading and bungee-jumping.
ANSWER: Government is just doing its job, protecting people from public nuisances and unscrupulous thrill-providers who don't take proper safety precautions.

Q5- Define a “burden hour.”
ANSWER: A burden hour is supposed to measure the time it takes to collect data and fill out federal forms, surveys and reports.

Q6- Why was Connecticut Senator, Joseph Lieberman, concerned enough to vote against the nomination of Professor John Graham as administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the current Bush administration?
ANSWER: Lieberman cited Graham's past criticisms of clean-air and clean-water statutes and questioned whether he would weaken federal health, environmental and safety standards.

Q6a- Graham is a proponent of “risk analysis.”  How is risk analysis defined on page 992 of the May 5, 2001 issue of Congressional Quarterly Weekly?

ANSWER: Risk analysis is a tool researchers use to evaluate the relative harm that can come from various threats to human health and the environment.

Q6b- Who was the first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential costs and benefits when writing a rule?
ANSWER: President Ronald Reagan.

Q6c- How much would compliance with OSHA’s regulations to limit injuries or disabilities from performing repetitive tasks cost according to an estimate by business groups as reported in the 2000 CQ Almanac?   What was the response of OSHA and Labor Department officials? 
ANSWER: Business groups say the pending rules' breadth and vagueness would drive up their cost of compliance—their estimates range from $14 billion to $80 billion a year—and would wrongly cut into business productivity and profitability. OSHA and Labor Department officials, meanwhile, say the rule is intended to be flexible and would not require most companies to act. While costing employers $4.2 billion annually, they say, the rule would also save them $9 billion a year in lost productivity.

Q7-  What was the makeup of the “iron triangle” during the Reagan years and what do environmentalists and consumer activists foresee as its composition in the current Bush administration?

ANSWER: The makeup of the “iron triangle” was an unbreakable alliance among Democratic committee chairmen, agency officials and interest groups that worked in concert to achieve common goals, whether it was funding for special projects or protecting specific constituencies.  Environmentalists and consumer activists say they fear the formation of a new triad—composed of industry officials, the White House and GOP committee chairmen.
Q8- Name 5 actions of the Bush administration that have drawn criticism from Environmentalists.

ANSWER: (1) Bush reneged on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, (2) rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, (3) reversed a Clinton rule to reduce the levels of arsenic in drinking water, (4) killed a Clinton ergonomics rule opposed by many major business groups, and (5) signaled his intention to reverse or revise Clinton regulations, including one to toughen cleanup standards for hardrock mining operations.
Q9- What did the executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and still in effect today, require agencies to prove before new regulations were enacted? How did the Democratic House counter in 1986?

ANSWER:  Reagan issued an executive order in 1981 that required agencies to prove that a regulation’s benefits would "outweigh" its costs.  In 1986, the Democratic-controlled House forced a showdown by deleting funds for OMB's regulatory division from the fiscal 1987 budget.
Q10- On the average, how long does it take to build an airport?  A highway?
ANSWER: The average time for a highway is 12 years and the average time for an airport is 15 years.

Q11- Discuss the pros and cons of licensing requirements.
ANSWER: The pros are that these requirements impose right and reasonable barriers to newcomers who want to enter a business.  A con lies within the rules of the licensing board ending up hurting more people sometimes than they protect.

Q12- Discuss the pros and cons of master plans and planning departments.

ANSWER: The pros of master plans and planning departments are in looking ahead and preventing damage.  The cons are in communities having given too much power to planning departments and other representative groups in recent years. It's gotten to the point where these not-necessarily-qualified-for-anything-in-particular citizen groups dispense their yeas or nays in a kingly manner, breathing life or death into projects while fellow citizens, for the most part, acquiesce like good subjects.

 Back