Hate crime legislation is redundant
Campus Times
March 12, 1999
by Nune Gazdhyan
Assistant Features Editor
It has been approximately six months since the death of Matthew Shepard.
As a result, legislation was proposed to Wyoming lawmakers to increase penalties
for hate crimes, but it was rejected.
For anyone who has known or seen a victim of a hate crime, the proposed
legislation would seem to be the answer for all those evil beings that take
up space in society. It is especially tempting to support such legislation
after hearing about so many similar instances of unthinkable crimes, such
as the incident in Texas where James Byrd, Jr., was tied to the back of
a truck and dragged to death by a group of rednecks for the lacking "milky
white skin" they adore.
However, placing personal feelings aside and taking a closer look at
the whole hate crime legislation in an objective manner the legislation
really does not make much sense. No one will deny that it will provide the
victims and the families with the satisfaction of revenge, but it will not
bring back the dead.
Having this type of legislation does not add up because it is just stating
that crime, which is illegal, can be made more illegal when it is a hate
crime.
No one denies that there is a problem with crime in this country, especially
geared toward historically disadvantaged groups. Therefore, anti-discrimination
laws were introduced, and within the past few years, the Supreme Court has
also recognized, or at least, addressed that there is an increase in discrimination
and hate crimes geared toward homosexuals.
Well ... how can we make something be more illegal? It does not make
sense and the laws are repetitive. So now lawyers not only have to defend
a criminal for his or her actions, but for the motive behind the action.
The motive is irrelevant; we should rather focus on the crime. The motive
often helps the criminal to wash his or her hands of the bloody deed by
providing psychological excuses for the heartless and vicious deed.
The difference between anti-discrimination laws and hate crime laws
is that the former was implemented to put in place protection where there
was none. It is already illegal to kill, regardless of the victims' looks
or preferrences in bed.
Hate crime legislation is creating double standards. Saying one crime
deserves a harsher punishment than another because the victim fit a particular
stereotype is unfair. It should take into consideration that the crime was
committed by one human being against another. While the legislation sounds
all nice and dandy, it does not rectify the crimes. Maybe the solution lies
in the community as a whole.
Society has not implemented enough education to cease stereotypes and
many leaders continue to aid in the continuing ignorance for the masses.
Pat Robertson, a nationally recognized minister and head of the Christian
Broadcasting Network, espouses his views and beliefs as a "righteous
Christian." He uses people's ingorance as ammunition against homosexuals
and their way of life.
"... the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline
of Gentile Civilization," Robertson said in Time Magazine.
Even with narrow-minded individuals corrupting the public with their
poisoned tongues, it is still redundant to have a separate law for hate
crimes.
By allowing such legislation people are telling the government that
it is acceptable to establish borders. This is dangerous for a country that
prides itself for having democracy. If democracy is going to be jeopardized,
might as well make everyone weak a cow brand and graze.
Nune Gazdhyan, a sophomore journalism major, is assistant features
editor of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at gazdhyan@ulv.edu.
