Terrorism, Rebellion, and Hate Crimes

Other than the completely baseless red herring about the Shepard-Byrd Act somehow threatening free speech, one of the most persistent criticisms of hate crime laws is that motivation does not, or should not, matter when it comes to criminal justice--that we should not establish special categories of prosecution for crimes that are motivated by specific factors. As Star Parker argues in the Dallas Morning News:

What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?

Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was [gay]?

That's a legitimate point of view, and the response to that argument is to describe the chilling effect that hate crimes can have on entire communities--an effect comparable to terrorism. The extra penalties, in other words, do not suggest that the victims' lives are worth more; they suggest that there are more victims involved.

This is also the rationale behind laws against rebellion and terrorism, which attach additional penalties to acts that are perpetrated with the objective of targeting the U.S. government or the country as a whole.

It's true that more categories may be added to the hate crimes law down the road. Personally, I would welcome additional protections for veterans, the elderly, children, and the homeless under the same terms as the Shepard-Byrd Act. All we are doing is stating that crimes that target communities need not pose a threat to the U.S. government, or to the country as a whole, in order to have a disproportionate effect on larger communities. The hate crime law, in other words, is not a statement that members of targeted groups are sacred; it is a statement that the government is not, and that every community terrorized by bias-motivated violence should be protected in a way that acknowledges the broader impact of such violence.

And if you still don't believe that LGBTs need special consideration, I would urge you to look at the Transgender Day of Remembrance web site--a record of anti-transgender violence, much of it unprosecuted, that serves as a threat against anyone who colors outside of the arbitrary lines of heternormativity. A country in which a gay couple can't hold hands in public without fear of violence is not a free country--regardless of whether the violence is perpetrated by the government itself, or by vigilantes who are deputized by local law enforcement agencies' selective unwillingness to prosecute.

See also: The Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009