Monday, June 29, 2009

Hate crime law unneeded


Hate crime legislation is well-intended - but it's not necessary.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, though, has this notion that federalizing criminal statutes somehow will send a message that criminals had better not commit hate-related crimes - or else.

What is the or else?

Tougher sentences in meaner prisons?

States, such as Texas, have plenty of laws on the books that compel the harshest penalties possible for a whole array of crimes. Federalization of these crimes makes an important political statement - which plays well with many key constituent groups.

But what is the point?

Holder told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that Congress should approve the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named after a young Wyoming man who was tortured and killed in 1998 because he was gay.

Shepard's death brought horror to the nation, given the manner in which he died. No, he shouldn't have died because of his sexual orientation.

What does a federal statute do that a state law doesn't do?

Shepard's killers would be put to death in Texas and in most of the states. Isn't that sufficient punishment for such a crime?

One would think so.

Most recently, Holder asserted, the killer of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was motivated by hate for Jews. The suspect is an 88-year-old white supremacist. What should happen to him if he is convicted of the crime for which he is charged? He would receive a harsh sentence - and without the presence of a hate crimes law.

No one should condone hate crimes. But do these categories of crime deserve a new federal law dedicated exclusively to those who commit them?

No. Existing state statutes are quite sufficient.

Source: Amarillo.Com

No comments:

Post a Comment