From Deseret News archives:

Hate-crimes bill unconstitutional

Published: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:08 a.m. MDT
PRINT | FONT + - 

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Barack Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism and harassment — the offenses typically associated with hate crimes — are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

The most oft-repeated example is the story of Matthew Shepard, a young Wyoming man who was savagely beaten and murdered in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. The horrific accounts of Shepard's murder have been detailed countless times as justification for a new federal hate-crimes law. The Senate hate-crimes bill bears Shepard's name, which is ironic because his story perfectly demonstrates why such a law is unnecessary. Both of Shepard's killers were tried, convicted and sentenced to consecutive life terms in state court. Make no mistake, Shepard's story is a profoundly tragic one, but an expanded federal hate-crimes law would have done nothing to prevent the murder or add to the punishment his killers received. This is typically the case.

About this ad

View Comments

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.

– About Comments

rss icon

Recommended in Opinion

Story

From a philosophical standpoint, the federal No Child Left Behind Law has been troubling from the beginning.

Story

In mid-March, a small army of interested citizens will attend neighborhood precinct caucuses to elect delegates.

Story

I have a vivid memory from my reckless teenage years of standing on the edge of a cliff near a river in Arizona, looking at a pool of water below.