THIS PAST weekend, Ronald Edward Gay quietly walked into a gay bar in Roanoke, pulled out his gun, and with the pull of a trigger changed the lives of everyone present in that bar. At the end of a bloody shooting, he had shot seven people and killed Daniel Lee Overstreet. He later confessed that his actions were a result of deep-rooted anger at the jokes people made about his last name. To the people in the bar that night, however, his actions were an illustration of hatred in its deadliest form.
The Roanoke shooting has highlighted the need for Americans to redefine a phrase that is quickly becoming yet another ambiguous political term: hate crime. The federal law against hate crimes, as it stands now, is far from an unequivocal stand against hatred. The Hate Crime Prevention Act of 1999, (HCPA) which would expand the definition of hate crimes to include actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or disability and decrease the number of obstacles in the federal prosecution of hate crimes, is still awaiting a vote in the House. The barrage of opposition to the Act, however, is indicative that we still are unsure whether we want a tolerant society, free of hatred.
Current statutes only grant government prosecutors jurisdiction in hate crimes if they meet two specific requirements. First, the crime must be motivated by hatred towards a person because of his race, religion, national origin or color. Second, the government must be able to prove that the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a "federally protected right." These requirements bar federal assistance in many hate-motivated crimes even though they are often heinous in nature, such as the Roanoke incident.
New hate crime legislation, such as the HCPA, would work to decrease obstacles facing federal prosecutors in the investigation of such crimes. Opponents of the HCPA have posited several arguments against expanding such legislation. The ambiguity these arguments have instilled in the American attitude towards hate crimes should be enough to prompt politicians to act immediately in passing a comprehensive, firm and clear-cut law addressing the issue of such crimes.
For example, opponents of hate crime legislation argue that laws providing special protection to a group of people undermine our notion of equality. By asking prosecutors to pay special attention to a particular crime because it was prompted by hatred, we are challenging the uniformity and impartiality of justice. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Current hate crime laws prohibit acts that are motivated to hurt a victim because he/she is different from the assailant. The law does not specifically protect blacks, but makes it illegal to harm a person because of their color. Thus, these laws equally protect white males and heterosexuals and, ultimately, protect everyone.
Opponents also raise question to the constitutionality of hate crime laws because of the increased penalties imposed for breaking such laws. Most of the crimes committed as acts of hatred are already covered under the law, such as vandalism, assault and murder. To impose stricter penalties specifically for hate crimes, opponents argue, is not only redundant but also penalizes a person's thoughts. Each person has a constitutional right to freedom of thought regardless of the morality of those thoughts.
The general purpose of hate crimes is to send a message to a specific group of people that they are unwelcome. Hate crime legislation does not penalize a person's thoughts but serves to send a rebuttal to these messages, namely that hatred will not be tolerated. Just as a person has the right to hate, society has the right to express its objection to hatred.
The increased punishment placed on convictions of hate crimes serves two purposes. First, it penalizes the actions of the perpetrator. One has the unalienable right to think whatever he/she wants, but when those thoughts are converted to actions, certain limitations are ultimately imposed. Second, the laws serve to counteract the intentions of hate crimes, which is usually to send a message to a particular group of people that they are unwelcome. These laws assure all persons that their rights will be protected.
Finally, the HCPA is more comprehensive in its definition of hate crime and will ultimately serve to protect all Americans. Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently include sexual orientation in their definition of hate crime, and the HCPA would create more uniformity in the prevention of hate crimes as well as ensure protection of all Americans. One does not need to be an activist of homosexuality to understand that the government has a fundamental right to protect all its citizens.
As laws are generally a reflection of our social norms, we need to work on creating statutes that articulate our stand on hatred and bigotry.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 16 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
