iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Hate Crimes Law Expansion Passes Senate To Include Sexual Orientation And More

JIM ABRAMS   07/17/09 10:49 PM ET   AP

Gays

WASHINGTON — People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of hate crimes law.

The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue hate crimes.

"The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after the chamber voted Thursday to attach the legislation as an amendment to a $680 billion defense spending bill expected to be completed next week.

The House in April approved a similar bill and President Barack Obama has urged Congress to send him hate crimes legislation, presenting the best scenario for the measure to become law since Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first introduced it more than a decade ago.

Kennedy, being treated for cancer and unable to attend the vote, said in a statement that the bill "closes the flagrant loopholes that for too long have prevented effective prosecution of these shocking crimes that terrorize entire groups of communities across America."

Republicans will have the opportunity to propose several more changes to the hate crimes bill on Monday, but that will not change its status as part of the must-pass defense bill.

Passage of the bill would effect the most significant extension of hate crimes law since Congress first acted in 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The 1968 law defines hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits federal involvement to when the victim is engaged in a narrow range of activities, including attending a public school, serving as a juror or participating in an event administered by a state or local government.

The proposed legislation expands federal hate crimes to include those perpetrated against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also removes restrictions on federally protected activities.

"There is no room in our society for these acts of prejudice," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. "Hate crimes fragment and isolate our communities. They tear at our collective spirit."

Some 45 states have hate crime statutes, and investigations and prosecutions would remain mainly in state and local hands. But the bill provides federal grants to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.

Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, said it "will provide police and sheriff's departments with the tools and resources they need to ensure that entire communities are not terrorized by hate violence."

The Senate approved the measure by voice vote after a 63-28 procedural vote was needed to allow its consideration as part of the defense bill. The 28 no votes were all Republicans. Five Republicans voted for it, giving supporters the 60 votes they needed.

Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states' rights and could intimidate free speech.

"The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality – which could even be extended to preaching against it," The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student who was murdered in 1998.

The FBI receives reports of nearly 8,000 hate crimes each year. Of those, about 15 percent are linked to sexual orientation, which ranks third after those involving race and religion.

___

The Senate hate crimes bill is S. 909.

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 227
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bcasey11
go veg
11:25 AM on 08/02/2009
Attack on free speech
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bcasey11
go veg
11:24 AM on 08/02/2009
This is what democracy looks like. Attack on the first Amendment. STOP IT STOP IT.
04:13 PM on 07/17/2009
S:1105 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1105:

Sec 7 defines hate crimes, actions and methods used and provides for federal assistance NOT oversight.

1. were the crimes described not prosecuted before? and 2. Anything involving explosives, kidnapping or disrupting interstate commerce automatically becomes a federal issue.

If the intent of the person's is to terrorize a community then that person is now a Terrorist. We have anti-terrorism laws and the Dept of Homeland Security, appropriation bills, and the Patriot Act already make it federal issue?

How is hate proved? All you need is an overzealous DA to make a convincing argument. Ask the innocent who were wrongfully imprisoned for physical, proveable evidence for decades how they feel about intangible, possibly circumstantial thought evidence.

Do people think small town law enforcement that turned a blind eye to murder and assault will all of a sudden investigate a hate crime?

How safe do stalking victims feel with a restraining order? Is a law on paper in your state capitol going to now be a bullet proof vest miles away to someone with deep hatred of you?

What difference does a hate crimes bill make that is not redundant and superfluous? It martyrs the criminal and elevates them to a respected status amongst their supporters and sympathizers when before they were treated like a common criminal.
04:51 PM on 07/18/2009
"Hate Bill" Favoritism

If "hate bill"-obsessed Congress can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone? If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See related web items including "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.") Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!
02:44 AM on 07/20/2009
OMG - I just did a follow-up glance to see that my summary of thoughts was completely appropriated by an incoherent evangelical.

My objection to the Hate Crimes bill has absolutely no basis in any religion, definitely NOT Christianity. My objection is that it is redundant and superfluous to existing laws, but it does NOT legislate immorality or the protection of whatever Louey just defined as immoral. Disabled, ethnics, minorities of any kind are subject to the tyranny of the majority, so as I've said before, I appreciate the intent of this bill. I just don't think its practical.
03:07 PM on 07/17/2009
Her Ladyship from South Carolina, the lovely Lindsay Graham, chose to avoid voting on this one. I am sure, however, it wasn't because he fears someone busting down his closet door if he votes against gay people like himself. Probably, the Lady Graham had a previous appointment at the hairdressers, and you know how hard it is to reschedule those things! (Am I accusing Lindsay Graham of being a closet homosexual? Well, let me put it this way: I am gay, and "gaydar" is real - even Ann Landers said so.)
02:14 PM on 07/17/2009
You know it's funny, you never hear so as a PEEP from the "pro-family" organizations and others on the right about the subject of existing federal hate crimes protections UNTIL the subject shifts to expanding current laws to include the LGBT community.

So answer this, opponents of hate crimes legislation: If you're SO vehemently opposed to the idea of ehanced punishments for bias-motivated crimes, why aren't you out there leading the charge to repeal ALL current hate crime protections which cover individuals on the basis of race, gender, and religious affiliation? I mean, if it's noting more than some Orwellian attempt at punishing a person's thoughts, why not work to eliminate them altogether?

Why not show some integrity and at least be consistent?
02:18 PM on 07/17/2009
Integrity and consistency have no place where sexuality is concerned. Ask Sanford or Ensign (or anyone who lives at The House on C street for that matter) about that one
02:23 PM on 07/17/2009
I have been consistent as far as my objection to ALL hate crimes - because regardless of motive of the person, they commit a violent crime, they have violated a law that's been common law for a very long time in virtually every civilized society. Prosecuting hate crimes creates messes with prosecution and defense and if anything martyrs the offender to his supporters, more so than treating him/her like a common criminal.
02:28 PM on 07/17/2009
This is not about the crime or the victim or the perp, per se. This legislation allows investigators more resources to better investigate crimes that might go overlooked or ignored because the victim is considered an immoral abnormal outcast.
02:30 PM on 07/17/2009
Fine, great, you win; you've been consistent all along, and we can expect to see you lead the charge to repeal all current federal hate crime laws, including this one, which is inevitably going to pass, and be signed into law by President Obama.

It really comes down to this: don't target/terrorize a gay person--or heter0, for that matter--on the basis of their actual or perceived orientation in an attempt to intimidate and strike fear into the wider LGBT community, and you won't be affected by this law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:04 PM on 07/17/2009
From Towleroad (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/07/dc-man-charged-with-misdemeanor-in-fatal-assault-of-gay-man.html): "Even though Tony Hunter's murder was initially investigated as a hate crime, it was never officially declared in court. On Thursday, the 18-year-old charged with the crime pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor....Hannah's lawyer argued that his client was touched inappropriately by the victim."
02:08 PM on 07/17/2009
Just read that. I wonder if people still think we don't need this legislation?
01:46 PM on 07/17/2009
The Christian organizations are upset because they may get their hate speech censored. LOL
01:54 PM on 07/17/2009
Churches and christian organizations are (unfortunately) exempt from this kind of legislation, according to what Ive seen AG Holder say on the hearings on this
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
02:47 PM on 07/17/2009
This legislation has nothing to do with free speech issues, it's about the ability of the federal government to assist when a hate crime is committed, so unless "churches and Christian organizations" are now going out and beating up and murdering homosexuals, they should be just fine.
01:42 PM on 07/17/2009
I love people claiming this is a "thought crime" (The french toast is a thought crime?" or unnecessary. Meanwhile, a hate crime occurs every hour of every day. It's okay though, existing laws will protect them! We all know how giddy small-town law enforcement is to act on these things.
02:13 PM on 07/17/2009
To take an extreme of your somewhat light hearted point:

If small-town law enforcement turns a blind eye to a murder or violent assault in a bar with numerous witnesses willing to testify to the fact that said crime was motivated based on the victim's religion, ethnicity, age, disability, LGBT status...what makes you think they're going to hop to it to enforce the Hate Crime now?
02:16 PM on 07/17/2009
With this legislation, if there is reason to believe the motive for the crime was ignorance and bigotry, federal investigators will have better resources to take over and investigate the crime where the local law enforcement did not or would not. Then it can be properly determined whether the crime would justify hate crime classification, or whether it was a simple random act of violence
02:16 PM on 07/17/2009
The federal government now has the ability to take over the case.
ppace60657
Vote out obstructionist Republicans in 2014
01:32 PM on 07/17/2009
I'm still not sure how we know WHY someone commits a crime against someone else. I mean if I murder someone, I (should) go to jail. What if the person is gay? It's still a crime. Did I know he's gay? Did I kill him because he's gay? Maybe, maybe not. If I murder someone, and I don't do it because of the person's race or sexuality, will I not go to jail? Isn't a crime a crime?
01:37 PM on 07/17/2009
It all depends on the circumstances of the crime. The location (say outside a gay bar), your acquaintance to the victim, etc. Motive CAN be determined if a bunch of drunken frat boys are sitting outside a gay bar with a case of beer and bats
01:43 PM on 07/17/2009
The important part of this legislation is the ability of the federal government to help in investigations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yliza
Living Life during Interesting Times
01:25 PM on 07/17/2009
Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. Their intent is not just to hurt an individual, but to intimidate an entire group of people.

We shouldn't need laws like this, and maybe someday we won't. I hope that is the case. In the meantime, we do what we must.
01:35 PM on 07/17/2009
Hate crimes manifest in 3 ways:

Propaganda: protected by 1st amendment until it violates the Brandenberg v Ohio precedent of inciting eminent lawless action.

Subtle or overt discrimination: we have civil courts, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, etc

Physical/verbal assault: laws already exist on the books for prosecution

What does this legislation provide that isn't already in place? Is this a "feel good" bill or is it legislating thought crime, similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts?
01:39 PM on 07/17/2009
The ability for the federal government to assist state and local governments in cases?

It's not a piece of "thought crime" legislation either. No one can read your mind. Once you act on your prejudices, then it's a crime.

Hate speech is protected.
01:41 PM on 07/17/2009
It gives the Feds authority to prosecute those crimes that state governments have been lax about prosecuting. The states all too long have accepted the prejudices that led to the crimes and then giving either light or no sentences if there are convictions.
01:17 PM on 07/17/2009
What a lot of you people don't understand is that the motives for the crime and the specific characteristics of the victim DO matter. This is not drive by shootings or your typical break in crime we're talking about. This is specific people with a specific agenda to injure or kill someone of a specific race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Until and unless the specific ignorances and bigotries of society can be addressed in an open and honest manner, and we really truly work for equallity of all people, there will always be hate crimes.

Remember, folks, The Holocaust was a hate crime, Custard's last stand (while a failure) was a hate crime. 9/11 was a hate crime. The Crusades against Islam were a hate crime. Slavery was a hate crime, and now the LGBT community are facing their own rampant oppression and discrimination, and yes, even torture and murder
01:29 PM on 07/17/2009
And prosecuting the true wackaloons who commit a viable hate crime have now been martyred for their belief (in the eyes of those sympathetic and supportive) instead of being prosecuted for violation of common law that is not unique to any one individual.

I appreciate the intent, but I don't like the legislation.

You prosecute the action, but motive and intent is the hardest thing to prove which is why many murder or wrongful death cases that seem cut and dried are prosecuted at a much lower penalty level (manslaughter instead of murder, murder 2 instead of capital offense, etc).

If I accidentally hit someone with my car who is different from me in any way, is that now committing a hate crime via vehicular assault or is it just criminal negligence? Can't wait for this to show up at the doorstep of the Justices in a few years.
01:52 PM on 07/17/2009
It would be no different than proving intent in any other violent crime. Nobody is saying that accidentally injuring a gay person is now a federal offense.
02:33 PM on 07/17/2009
No. And since you appear to be such a legal expert, you might be familiar with a little concept referred to as "mens rea?" You know, the entire basis for determining whether a person is charged with misdemeanor assault vs. first degree m u r der?
01:54 PM on 07/17/2009
you are saying that the victim of a drive by shooting is insignificant, unless he/she is a particular race/religion/orientation.
01:57 PM on 07/17/2009
No, of course not. I am saying that the victim of a drive by shooting or other random act of violence is not a hate crime
04:52 PM on 07/17/2009
If the victim were targeted based on his race/religion/orientation, then it is a hate crime AND murder, etc. If the victim WASN'T, then it isn't a hate crime, just murder, etc.

And this is a difficult concept for you to understand because ... ??

Attacking someone because of their membership in a particular group is a far worse offense than deliberately or at random. That's why we have it and need it extended.

Why churches are worried is a little mystifying, unless of course they plan on assaulting people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
progressivelady
I'm With the Green Tea Party
12:06 PM on 07/17/2009
Finally some Justice under a better President than what the Shrub was, that man only took our rights away, and we will suffer for his bad decisions and policies for years to come, example the Patriot Act.
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
12:04 PM on 07/17/2009
This is a dumb law which only serves to pander to certain minority groups. Criminality should not be determined based on the race or sexual orientation of the victim. Matthew Shepard, who this law is named for, is a good example of why this law is not necessary and a bad idea. Mr. Shepard was murdered because he was gay. The perpetrators were convicted and sentenced to life in prison under existing law. These men were prosecuted because they killed a person not because the person they killed was of a protected class. That is the best way to approach these issues. The government need to stop dividing Americans into groups and treating them differently based on these designations.
12:12 PM on 07/17/2009
The Shepard case took extraordinary effort and activism to get together sufficient funds for the small community to adequately prosecute the perps. Small-town law enforcement is frequently out-gunned in these cases. This law assures a fair shake for the victim, as well as the criminal.
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
12:16 PM on 07/17/2009
And they did what it took and got the convictions. Are you only concerned about the resources of small towns when they are prosecuting people on certain classes?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Tyler-Durden
leading a revolution of one
12:13 PM on 07/17/2009
your interpretation is way off.

1. this law extends application of existing law to include other classifications of social identity. (race, color, religion, ethnicity, plus now gender, sexuality, and disability)

2. this law extends jurisdiction of the federal level if a lower, local jurisdiction fails to administer justice.

it does not pander to minorities. it protects all groups.

criminality SHOULD consider the race, or other classification of the victim, WHEN THE PERSON IS VICTIMIZED BECAUSE OF THAT CLASSIFICATION.

Govt will provide protections based on group differences AS LONG AS AMERICANS SHOW BIAS AND BIGOTRY BASED ON THESE DIFFERENCES.

in other words, when we eliminate racism, we won't need hate crime laws. when do you suppose that day will come?
12:16 PM on 07/17/2009
As more information comes out about the Shepard case, it looks like some drugs and money were changing hands. None the less, the perps should have received the death penalty.
I don't think the law is dumb at all, I think it is a double edge sword and when the tables are turned on some people they will be the first to holler that the intent of the law was to protect me not the other people.
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
12:19 PM on 07/17/2009
I disagree. It is the victimization that should be prosecuted, not the reasons. The people who killed Mr. Sheppard should be in prison for life because they committed murder not because the murdered a gay man. Justice should be blind in that regard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
11:46 AM on 07/17/2009
The 1st hate crime bill 25 years ago exempted public schools from the law. The reason is that school yard fights take place every day and 12 year old boys call each other horrible names. No one is meaner than a 12 year old kid.
Now many of those play ground fights will be Federal Offenses and each prosecution will require millions of dollars to investigate.
Federal officials will fly in to your local town and stay at the Hilton for a few weeks. Little Billy, ( 10 yrs old ) will be hauled to the state capital to answer questions about his fight at lunch time where someone spilled his milk and he was called a racial slur.
11:55 AM on 07/17/2009
Yeah, because that happens so much now. Race has been a protected class since hate crime laws were first introduced. All they're doing is adding orientation and gender identity. Why are you so against this?
12:01 PM on 07/17/2009
Didn't know race was a class. It has been used to put people in group, but not that doesn't really make a class.

What we need is for people to stop with the collectivist thinking. Whether Racial, Sexual, Religious or Political and treat each other with respect because at the end of the day, we're all human.

We should have dialog and debates, and stop with the hateful speech that comes from each groups towards another group just because 1 of the many labels we as humans have been branded with.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
12:05 PM on 07/17/2009
The question is, Should federal authorities be investigating school yard fights at local grammar schools? Yes or No. ?
Are local police departments running short of funds and as a result, they can't investigate violent crimes? ( My town has a 2 million dollar police budget and we had only one assault for the year. )
This is a money give away but packaged in a gay rights legislative package to appease gay activists that are upset with Obama.
Its a pay off to gay right groups by giving money to local government officials.
Its a feel good bill but has little effect on violent crime.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Tyler-Durden
leading a revolution of one
12:01 PM on 07/17/2009
hm, no, i don't think so. this is ludicrous and you are just exaggerating. relax.
11:28 AM on 07/17/2009
Watch what Eric Holder saya about this bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnziaXfYhc4&feature=related