| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 commits a hate crime does not necessarily have any specific problem with the individual personally. He pre-selects his victim to send a message to the entire group as a whole. This is why hate crimes are more serious than other kinds of crime because they victimize more than one person" (Gordon, 2001). If these statements are true, most hate crimes are premeditated, with more thought given in the pre-selection of the victim and the kind of crime committed than other offenses or random acts of violence and vandalism. According to Gordon "This kind of crime becomes more of a public safety issue than anything else because of all the factors it involves" (Gordon, 2001). These factors include: 22 Retaliatory offenses. 22 Community unrest, fear, and tension 22 Copycat acts 22 Unique emotional harms 22 Redirection of law enforcement resources 22 Loss of trust in criminal justice institutions (Utah Sentencing Committee, 2000) The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that this kind of attack takes place on two levels; "not only is it an attack on one's physical self, but it is also an attack on one's very identity (APA,1998. 2). The emotional damage can cause intense feelings of vulnerability, anger, and depression, physical ailments and learning problems, and difficult interpersonal relations - all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder can be brought on by hate crimes" (APA, 1998.4). Enforcing hate crimes legislation is arduous, emotionally draining, time consuming and resource depleting. Bob Gallagher, the Civil Rights specialist at the FBI's Salt Lake office, said, "Hate and discrimination are instilled and ingrained into children through the environment in which they are raised" (Gallagher, 2001). While hate crimes legislation probably cannot change ones environment, hate crimes supporters feel that new laws with enhanced penalties will have a deterrent effect that would help reduce the influx of hate groups recruiting and moving into an area. Utah State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said, The message that [hate crimes] law sends to all the white racist and other hate groups is that when their bias and prejudice is manifested by a physical action, it is considered unacceptable and intolerable behavior. It will be punished to the greatest extent of the law. I am the Attorney General of this state, and it worried me that our lack of a workable hate crimes law leads these groups to believe that Utah is sympathetic and tolerant of their racist beliefs. And we are not (Shurtleff, 2001). The opponents of hate crimes legislation feel that a crime is a crime, and that bias motivated crimes law is punishing a person's thought process and not necessarily the crime itself. Daniel B. Newby of the Sutherland Institute contends that the spate of laws takes the difficult job of determining intent to a new level. Special classes of victims are created, who are afforded a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes. Such laws "attempt to discover and then punish what people think, rather than focusing on criminal acts of violence and vandalism." Newby further suggests that such laws attempt to categorize and play favorites with varieties of hatred. "Can a judicial system remain just," Newby asks, "while setting up a special hierarchy of victims and increasing punishments for those harboring the 'wrong' kinds of thoughts?" (Newby, 1999). Such arguments suggest that there are enough laws dealing with criminal behavior on the books that there is no need for additional legislation. Opponents quote the U.S. Constitution to remind us that every one is guaranteed equal protection under the law. David Spackman, a political activist and opponent to hate crimes, contends that hate crimes legislation not only violates this principle of individual and equal justice under the law, but that such laws will "almost certainly will bring more misery to the population than whatever injustice happens now" (Spackman, 2001). The most volatile argument presented against hate crimes legislation is the inclusion of sexual orientation among the protected groups. In general hate crimes legislation has been tagged as a vehicle for gay rights. Acknowledging sexual orientation in the statute is perceived by opponents as a validation, and legislation as the window of opportunity the gay community needs to introduce more gay rights and the eventual acceptance of gay marriage (Mylar, 2001). To many this is unacceptable, especially with the predominant conservative view that homosexuality is a choice and not an innate genetic disposition. The strongest fear is based upon the supposition that a strong homosexual influence would have a negative effect on traditional family values. Parents and political activists feel that a hate crimes law would be the first step to the infiltration, education and forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in schools and the community. Proponents argue that hate crimes laws do not give gays and lesbians any more rights, but it sends the message that the discrimination, assault or murder of someone based upon their sexual orientation is wrong. Darrin Hobbs of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah refuted the opponent's claim by stating "We do not consider hate crimes to be the vehicle to gay rights because it is a completely separate body of law" (Hobbs, 2001). Hobbs further purports that the notion of sexuality as a choice is absurd. "Religious affiliation," Hobbs claimed, "is always a matter of choice; it is always included and seems to cause no lawmaker any difficulty in conscience" (Hobbs, 2001). The response of gay groups is that they do not seek gay rights, they just want equal rights They feel that hate crimes laws would guarantee them the protection they need to go about their own business free from persecution and abuse. Another policy argument centers around the impact of hate crimes laws on the community as a whole. Supporters of 53 |
