US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Martinus]

If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population

Try again.

We had this conversation in a previous thread.  5-10% is a reasonable estimate.  I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles.  Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.

It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.

Well if we go with your 2% number, rather than 5-10%, it shows that a GLBT person is even more likely to be targeted with violence than I assumed, no?

So thanks for showing that hate crime legislation is even more necessary.

[Strix]

You do realize that a victim's age can make a difference in certain offenses. For instances, a victim's age or disability can be an aggrevating factor for certain sex crimes. Florida's statute for sexual battery is one such example. If the victim is less than 12 years old, and the offender is older than 18, and certain other factors apply, the penalty is worse than if the victim had been an adult. Same thing if the victim is physically incapacitated in some way.

And have you ever heard of elderly protection laws? Many states mandate special penalties for abuse of the elderly. Protecting certain classes of victims is nothing unusual.

You do understand the difference between hate crime legislation and statute law? There aren't extra penalties added on top of the normal statute, at least in NY.

[Strix]

I'm imagining a defendant arguing statutory rape is unconstitutional now. Thanks.

Marty tried doing that in a previous thread. 

[Malthus]

What would make a mockery would be if one cause (say, race) was considered worse than another (say, religion).

Hate crime legislation does just that. One cause i.e. the protected group is considered worse than another i.e. everyone else not protected under hate crime legislation.

Hence the notion that adding aggrieved groups to the list *increases* fairness. Ideally, eventually attacking someone for their identity, no matter what it is, would be "protected".

However, as it stands, having hate crimes protections which includes race and religion but not sexual orientation is unfair, for the reason you describe, and adding sexual orientation makes the law *less* unfair.

The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.

[Strix]

If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population (which is much lower than the non-white people, not to mention religious people), these figures suggest they are more likely to be targeted than other minorities.

Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.

You do realize that only roughly 11-13% of the US is black and another 11-13% is hispanic? If you place homosexuals at 5-10% that places them very close to the percentages of the two main minorities in the US. It also likely means that they are the 3rd highest minority in the country. Also, according to the FBI, there are about 4,000 crimes committed a year per 100,000 people. The US has an estimated population of 303,824,640 (as of 2008) which means an estimated 12,152,000 crimes occur in the US a year.

You could multiply the crime committed intentionally against gay people by a factor of 10 and that still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket nor would it even justify special legislation at that number.

[Strix]

Hence the notion that adding aggrieved groups to the list *increases* fairness. Ideally, eventually attacking someone for their identity, no matter what it is, would be "protected".

However, as it stands, having hate crimes protections which includes race and religion but not sexual orientation is unfair, for the reason you describe, and adding sexual orientation makes the law *less* unfair.

The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.

I am not sure what the motivation is of the politicians. It could be anti-gay animus or it could be that perhaps politicians feel that homosexuals have "arrived" and no longer need special protections. The whole civil marriage thing has kicked in the door and will lead to a lot of other benefits once denied same sex partners. I am not sure.

[Strix]

I disagree Strix.

People who do hate crimes want you to know why you're being targetted. If a group of men kick down a black man screaming "nigger!" and drag him through the streets, but then take his wallet, its not going to look like a robbery.

I do not see how this flies in the face of equal protection. I think I could equally argue accidently hitting someone with your car because they were wearing all black at night and stumbled drunk upon a poorly lit roadway and shooting someone in the face also flies in the face of equal rights. After all, why is one life more valuable than another?

It couldn't possibly have something to do with motivation, right?

It can and it does. The legal statutes of the State in question covers motivation. It's when you add "extra" penalties that it becomes a problem.

Does the guy driving the car deserve an extra few years in prison for hitting someone wearing all black at night who drunkenly stumbles into the road by accident because he is a card carrying KKK member? And we know all KKK members are racist, so it's obviously a hate crime.

[Martinus]

If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population (which is much lower than the non-white people, not to mention religious people), these figures suggest they are more likely to be targeted than other minorities.

Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.

You do realize that only roughly 11-13% of the US is black and another 11-13% is hispanic? If you place homosexuals at 5-10% that places them very close to the percentages of the two main minorities in the US. It also likely means that they are the 3rd highest minority in the country. Also, according to the FBI, there are about 4,000 crimes committed a year per 100,000 people. The US has an estimated population of 303,824,640 (as of 2008) which means an estimated 12,152,000 crimes occur in the US a year.

You could multiply the crime committed intentionally against gay people by a factor of 10 and that still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket nor would it even justify special legislation at that number.

Uhm, can you read or count? The statistics I quoted indicated that there were 3820 racially motivated crimes, not crimes against blacks only, and 1265 crimes against gay people.

So if we take the highest possible estimate, 10% of the population would be among those targeted in 1265 crimes, and 30% of the population (there are also Asians and other minorities, not just blacks and Hispanics) in 3820 crimes. Both rates are comparable, and it is hardly "a drop" for the gay people, unless you also mean the same for racially motivated crimes.

[Valmy]

The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.

I just want to say I like Malthus, he is a good man, but frankly I agree with everything he just said.

[Martinus]

Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?

Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?

[Martinus]

The wikipedia entry suggests that:

Hate crime laws in the United States (also known as bias crimes) protect against crimes motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state and federal laws vary, typical protected characteristics are race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

so it seems that the hate crime laws are "color blind" (so a white protestant straight man can be a victim of a hate crime, if attacked by a commando of black atheist lesbians) and Strix is full of shit, and his "argument" is a strawman.

Of course, wikipedia can also be wrong.

Can any US lawyers weigh in?

[Strix]

Uhm, can you read or count? The statistics I quoted indicated that there were 3820 racially motivated crimes, not crimes against blacks only, and 1265 crimes against gay people.

So if we take the highest possible estimate, 10% of the population would be among those targeted in 1265 crimes, and 30% of the population (there are also Asians and other minorities, not just blacks and Hispanics) in 3820 crimes. Both rates are comparable, and it is hardly "a drop" for the gay people, unless you also mean the same for racially motivated crimes.

Yes, they are both drops in a bucket. That's 3820 crimes committed against 60,000,000+ people. Does that seem like a lot to you? Against gays that 1265 crimes committed against 20,000,000-30,000,000+ people. That's something like .0006 of the gay population is effected by hate crime.

You seriously think that's a significant number?

[ulmont]

Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?

Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?

The recent amendment is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ZjTeUI:e2000111:

The main work is done here:

SEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

      (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

-`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

      `(a) In General-

            `(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

                  `(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

                  `(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

                        `(i) death results from the offense; or

                        `(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

            `(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

                  `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

                        `(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

                        `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

                              `(I) death results from the offense; or

                              `(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

                  `(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

                        `(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

                              `(I) across a State line or national border; or

                              `(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

                        `(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

                        `(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

                        `(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

                              `(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

                              `(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

            `(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

      `(b) Certification Requirement-

            `(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that--

                  `(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

                  `(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

                  `(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

                  `(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

            `(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

      `(c) Definitions- In this section--

            `(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

            `(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

            `(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;

            `(4) the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and

            `(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

      `(d) Statute of Limitations-

            `(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

            `(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.'.

      (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

            `249. Hate crime acts.'.

So yes, this applies in both directions.

[Martinus]

So Strix is full of shit when he argues this violates equal protection? Well, should have expected it.

[Barrister]

If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population

Try again.

We had this conversation in a previous thread.  5-10% is a reasonable estimate.  I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles.  Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.

It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.

Well if we go with your 2% number, rather than 5-10%, it shows that a GLBT person is even more likely to be targeted with violence than I assumed, no?

So thanks for showing that hate crime legislation is even more necessary.

No problem.

I support hate crime legislation, and support including gays in that legislation.