Ed Vitagliano
AFA Journal news editor
Second in a series. Part 1, July 1999, and Part 3, November-December 1999.
October 1999 – It was only a fender-bender, but the two men let the emotions of the moment get out of control. After jumping out of their vehicles and shouting about whose fault the accident was, one man shoved the other. And called him a queer.
As it turned out, the man was a homosexual. The aggressor was charged with disturbing the peace – ordinarily nothing more than a simple fine. He was also charged under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 (HCPA) and sentenced to one year in prison. He was lucky: HCPA authorizes sentences of up to 10 years.
This scenario is not yet possible, of course, because HCPA has not yet been passed. In March of this year Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HCPA in their respective houses. However, the brutal deaths of homosexuals like Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, Billy Jack Gaither in Alabama, and “gay” couple Winfield Mowder and Gary Matson in California, have produced a spontaneous surge of support for federal hate crime legislation.
While the fate of HCPA is still uncertain in the House of Representatives, it has already passed the Senate. In the light of such vicious killings, many in Congress seem to be so fearful of appearing unsympathetic that they may be forced by political considerations to vote for the legislation.
Targeting a group of people
As its name suggests, a “hate crime” is a crime which is motivated by hatred towards the victim. Beyond that, however, the animosity which drives the crime is said to actually focus on the group to which the victim belongs.
Thus, proponents of HCPA claim that hate crimes have a ripple effect throughout a particular segment of society. In its website report on hate crimes, for example, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) said, “Criminal activity based on prejudice terrorizes not only the victim, but the entire community of which they are a part.”
The NGLTF insists that a law against hate crimes that are based upon sexual orientation is necessary to protect the group as well as the individual. While current law allows the federal government to seek additional penalties for crimes motivated by the victim’s race, religion or ethnicity, HCPA would add three categories of victims which would gain federal protection: gender, disability and “the actual or perceived…sexual orientation…of the victim.”
Many opponents of HCPA, however, insist with equal vehemence that homosexual activists have overstated the number of these hate crimes. While there is no doubt that some crimes are directed solely against homosexuals, FBI statistics show that such incidents represent a fraction of 1% of the total crimes committed in the U.S. (See AFA Journal, July, 1999.)
What else but political considerations, conservatives argue, would elevate crimes committed against homosexuals over those committed against others in society? Especially when the numbers of hate crimes against homosexuals represent a minuscule fraction of the total?
After noting the tremendous publicity generated by the murder of Matthew Shepard, for example, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby reminded his readers that there had been another 20,000 murders committed that year. “Virtually none of them will be mourned in candlelight vigils or written about in [the Boston Globe],” he said.
These sorts of observations have led HCPA opponents to argue that, as a matter of public policy, all crime should be considered a hate crime – and that particular groups should not be singled out for special protection. Referring to a Wisconsin statute that allowed the sentence for a hate crime to be tripled, John Leo asked in U.S. News & World Report, “Is it morally three times worse to attack an Asian or a gay than to attack a randomly selected straight white male?”
Conservatives maintain that if society insists on making distinctions between similar crimes based on who the victim is, all sense of morality will disappear.
“Do advocates of this new [hate crime] law realize what they are saying?” asks culture critic and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. “They are saying that if [Matthew Shepard’s] sadistic murderers had been gay, his killing would be of no special interest to them, and if Matt had not himself been gay, this atrocity would not be a hate crime.”
Different punishments already exist
Supporters of HCPA, however, say the legal system already differentiates between crimes. The USA Today editorial board said, “Scores of laws allow additional punishment based on factors that offend our conscience: premeditation in murder cases, for example. The law can and should punish some similar crimes differently.”
That argument doesn’t hold water, said Stephen M. Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy. “First of all, the focus in criminal law has always been conduct. All murders are crimes because they are actions – the taking of an innocent human life,” Crampton said. “Premeditation is considered as an evidentiary matter – it distinguishes, for example, between murder and manslaughter.”
Crampton also argues, however, that while premeditation is the contemplation of a previously-defined illegal act, HCPA goes further. “Hate crime laws actually delve one step deeper into a suspect’s mind: they criminalize what a person thinks about a homosexual in the commission of a crime,” he said. “While hatred for anyone may be abhorrent, it is not illegal.”
As writer Fulton Huxtable explained, “Assault is assault and the motive does not alter the nature of the act. Motive explains the act, it does not excuse, mitigate or make it worse.”
In any case, said Crampton, the example of premeditated murder still begs the question. “The more appropriate comparison is not between premeditated murder and hate crimes. It would be to suggest that premeditating the murder of a homosexual should be punished more severely than premeditating the murder of a heterosexual. And most Americans would probably strongly disagree that homosexuals are more valuable than heterosexuals.”
A deterrent effect
Even if homosexuals are given special protection by HCPA, wouldn’t it be worth it if, as Northeastern University criminologists Jack McDevitt and Jack Levin suggest, “Hate crime legislation can serve as a deterrent”? Activists argue that just having such laws on the books would convince hoodlums to think twice before targeting homosexuals.
Opponents of HCPA, however, reject this line of reasoning, arguing instead that if murder laws do not deter hoodlums, why should hate crime laws? Following the murder of Matthew Shepard, columnist Stephen Chapman said: “Wyoming does have a law against murder, which did not stop his killers from pistol-whipping him into a coma and leaving him to die. The two men charged with the crime face the prospect of being put to death by lethal injection. If that didn’t deter them, what earthly good would another law have done?”
In fact, some evidence is already suggesting that current state hate crime laws fail to deter those who prey upon homosexuals. In July, two brothers from Northern California, Matthew and Tyler Williams, allegedly killed Winfield Mowder and Gary Matson, a homosexual couple who lived in Happy Valley, California.
After the murder of the couple, Human Rights Campaign political director Winnie Stachelberg complained, “In the aftermath of these grisly shootings, it should be abundantly clear to all people that hate crimes are increasing and we need to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”
Stachelberg must have missed the contradiction: California has had a hate crime law for crimes committed against homosexuals since 1994 – apparently without effect.
The same is true in other states. Art Teitelbaum, a spokesman for the AntiDefamation League in Miami, bragged to the Miami Herald, “The [hate crimes] statute in Florida is one of the toughest in the United States. It sends a very clear message to those who commit these types of crimes.”
Unfortunately, this “very clear message” doesn’t appear to be deterring hate crimes. The state attorney general’s office reported that hate crimes increased in 1998, including an increase of those based upon sexual orientation.
On the other hand, opponents of HCPA point out that states are successfully prosecuting crimes against homosexuals without the aid of hate crime laws. The murderers of Shepard and Gaither were apprehended and punished under existing law – in states which do not have hate crime laws to “protect” homosexuals.
A statement against “gay-bashing”
Activists often claim, however, that state and local law enforcement officials do not always prosecute crimes committed against homosexuals. A federal hate crime law is thus necessary to ensure that such incidents don’t go unpunished.
Chapman responds that the complaint against law enforcement officials is not fair. He said activists are “overlooking the fact that not every attack on heterosexuals is pursued either. Prosecutors drop cases all the time, for all sorts of reasons – weak evidence, lack of witnesses, overloaded dockets and so on. That’s no reason to federalize street crimes that ultimately have to be combated by local law enforcement agencies.”
When all else fails, however, homosexual activists tout the importance of hate crime laws as symbolic of society’s disapproval of crimes based on sexual orientation.
“I think [hate crime laws] are very strong community statements that a community does not condone hate violence,” said Rebecca Isaacs, a spokeswoman for NGLTF.
Yet, conservatives refuse to be painted into the corner by the reasoning of activists like Isaacs, as if opposing HCPA means one is in favor of “hate violence.” Instead, opponents of hate crime laws see the push to pass HCPA as being motivated by a broader agenda, which merely uses violence as a smokescreen.
“Why add serious federal charges on top of adequate state laws, even for less serious acts, like a shove or a punch in the nose?” Crampton asked. “It’s for one simple reason: homosexual activists will not tolerate anyone who disapproves of their lifestyle, and society must be made to ‘cry uncle’ on the issue of homosexual civil rights. And activists will use HCPA as a big stick to get the job done.” 
Next month: How activists might use HCPA to repress dissenting opinion on the subject of the homosexual lifestyle.
