Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009
In 1969 the federal government put into effect the federal hate crimes acts. The federal hate crimes act protects people of all race, religion, gender, color, ethnicity, and national origin. At the time this law only applied if the victim was engaging in a federally protected activity such as voting or going to school. However, the law did not include hate crimes against gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status. It was not until 1998 when Matthew Sheppard was brutally attacked and left for death that the act changed. On the evening of October 6, 1998 Matthew Sheppard was at Fireside Lounge a gay friendly bar in Laramie Wyoming where he met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson
…show more content…
Hate crimes at the time were only defined by a victim’s race, religion, gender, color, ethnicity, and national origin. The HCPA closed the gap and included hate crimes that occur due to a persons perceived gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability Matthew Shepard Hate
Crimes Prevention Act, 2009). The main goal for the HCPA was to expand the federal governments ability to prosecute hate crimes. Other goals of the HCPA included; the removal of the perquisite that the person must be participating in a federally protected activity, gave federal authorities the ability to investigate hate crimes that local authorities chose not to pursue, provided funding of five million dollars per year from 2010-2012 to help state and local government prosecute hate crimes, and required the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (Matthew Shepard
…show more content…
This law intended to protect the people of these minority groups and provide harsher punishments for bias- motivated violence. The law essentially took a crime motivated by hate and separated it into two separate crimes; the hate crime and the original crime. When the bill was signed by President Obama in 2009 there were unintended effects associated as well.
Many perceived the act as being unconstitutional. They claimed that the bill created a “privileged class” and tried to label all crimes as hate crimes. Erba (2014) found opponents thought that the act was vague because there was no definition of disability and sexual orientation. When listing the protected people under the HCPA one is left to guess who exactly those people are. For example, in Illinois under the terms of sexual orientation a person who identifies themselves as bisexual is protected under the act but in Arizona they are not (Erba, 2014). The vagueness of the act suggests that it is more symbolic than it is
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
Proposition 8 was a piece of legislation formally called the California Marriage Protection Act which was an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. The amendment was voted on and passed during the state elections of November 5th, 2008. The new legislation added to the constitution reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The issue was prompted in May of 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples had a right to marry one another according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. This overruled earlier legislation known as Proposition 22, which was in fact the same as Proposition 8, but was a part of California’s Family Code, and not written into the constitution. Because the Constitution was given precedence over the Family Code in the Supreme Court’s ruling, Proposition 22 was rendered obsolete. Many people who shared conservative views about the meaning of marriage took exception to that and took action to create Proposition 8.
Many people claim that the violence happenes not because of sexual orientation, but because it is just an act to be committed. According to the Human Rights Campaign, crimes against homosexual people resulted in four deaths in 1998 alone. James Ward, a thirty-seven year old male from Arkansas, was stabbed to death in his own home by eighteen year old Jeremy Legit. Legit claimed that Ward made two sexual advances toward him. He was sentenced to twenty years. In Honolulu, a man was beaten to death by a group of teenagers in a public shower because they believed he was gay. They were sentenced to five years in custody. In September, a transgender female was stabbed repeatedly with a broken beer bottle and set on fire. Christopher Lopez and Christopher Chavez spent five months in jail before all charges were dropped by the Fresno Police Department. On October 12, 1998 Matthew Shepard, an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming was beaten, tormented, tied to a fence, and left to die in freezing temperatures. The two men were sentenced to life in jail, only after the media had covered the trial and the whole world knew of the att...
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
At the age of 19, the young Richard Machado was the first individual to be convicted of a federal electronic mail (email) hate crime. The reason for the conviction was a threatening hate message in 1996 to 59 Asian students at University of California at Irvine (UCI). Richard was also a student at UCI at the time. When he was asked about the emails he had sent, he said that he had sent them out in frustration, because Asians were dominating the UCI campus, and he believed that it made it less popular. Less popular due to the raising grade curve the Asians caused. He also managed to mention that he didn’t like his Asian roommate.
When the topic of hate and bias crime legislation is brought up two justifications commonly come to mind. In her article entitled “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation” author Heidi M. Hurd discusses the courts and states views that those who commit hate and bias crimes ought to be more severely punished. She takes into consideration both sides of the argument to determine the validity of each but ultimately ends the article in hopes to have persuaded the reader into understanding and agreeing with her view that laws concerning the punishment of hate and bias laws should not be codified. Hate crime is described as a violent, prejudice crime that occurs when a victim is targeted because of their membership in a specific group. The types of crime can vary from physical assault, vandalism, harassment or hate speech. Throughout the article Hurd tried to defend her view and explain why there should be no difference of punishment for similar crimes no matter the reason behind it. Her reason behind her article came from the law that President Obama signed in 2009 declaring that crimes committed with hatred or prejudice should have more sever punishments. While the court has their own views to justify their reasoning behind such decisions, in the article Hurd brings up points and facts to prove the wrongfulness of creating such a law. However, though Hurd has made her views clear in the following essay I will discuss reasons why the penalties are justifiable, why they should receive the same degree of punishment, less punishment and my personal view on the topic.
The punishment of a crime should not be determined by the motivation for the crime, yet that is exactly what hate crime legislation does. It places emphasis on a crime for the wrong reasons. Hate crimes victimize more than just the victims, and this is why the punishments are more severe, but Sullivan argues that any crime victimizes more than the victims. He suggests that random crimes with no prejudice in place can be perceived as something even more frightening, as the entire community feels threatened instead of just a group. Proven in Sullivan’s article is the worthlessness of the “hate” label. I would agree that it only serves to further discriminate, instead of achieving the peace and equality that it pretends to stand
Society consists of many different sociological groups. These groups involve people of diverse races, religions, and more. Unfortunately, hate crimes happen when groups become angry or frustrated towards each other. These groups are formed mostly during times of economic struggle or even social change. Hate groups continue to be a problem in our society. A group believes that the reason for a specific problem is only the fault of another racial, religious, or other group. The most common forms of crime in our society are due to hatred. Hate crimes are defined as a crime motivated by hatred, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, disability, and/or sexual orientation. Plenty of hate crimes happen due to the fact that someone is different from someone else.
There are both state and federal laws that prohibit hate crimes, but proving an assailant committed a crime in prejudice is very difficult. Any type of crime can call for some form of punishment, from fines and short prison stays for misdemeanors to long term imprisonment for felonies. Once it has been reviled that an accused willfully committed an offense, proof must be given that indicates the crime was influenced by prejudice against a specific characteristic in order to show that it was also a hate crime. When this can be proven, the harshness of the crime automatically increases. People often wonder why hate crime punishment is harsher than for crimes that are not motivated by any type of bias. The basic reason for this is that most crimes are directed at an individual, but hate crimes are against an entire community. A burglar who breaks into a random home does so for personal gain, and usually doesn’t even know who lives in the home they are invading. Conversely, a person who chooses a victim based on a particular bias is singling out a ch...
Thousands of homosexuals immigrated to the San Francisco area in this time period, as stated in Gay Manifesto by Carl Wittman. Feeling threatened and targeted by heterosexual society, they formed an enclaved on the basis of sexual identity. United, gays advocated for the integration of tolerance of society as they felt in many aspects the group was misunderstood. Labeled as “sexual perverts,” the group worked to change this negative perception. Gays attempted to seek support from women and minorities facing similar discrimination. However, support was not always granted. Assaults on members of gay community were in considered to be lynching, by the community. The comparison did not connect with African Americans. The vision of freedom the Gay community envisioned was one of social unity with disregard to sexual identity. The avocation of gay perceptions eventually changed the ideals of equality and societal
...ce about committing a crime. But lawmakers failed to see that this is the point of any law. Look at how much crime this country has. That is part of the reason why many states reinstated the death penalty—because people were supposed to think twice about committing crimes. Obviously, these laws are not doing their job. The government reported 97 executions this year alone, up from 68 in 1998 and 74 executions in 1997 (Johnson 1). Officials should rethink their strategies. If laws already exist for a certain crime, regardless of whether or not it is a hate crime, then those laws should be used. Laws should not be changed to fit individual situations.
The historical context of DOMA arose from a Hawaii Supreme Court Case, Baehr vs. Lewin (1993). Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii stating that the state’s refusal of giving her and her partner a marriage license was illegal discrimination and unconstitutional. The court saw that case had merit and ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage constituted to discrimination based on gender. Under Hawaii’s Equal Rights Amendment, the state would need to exhibit a compelling state interest in order to ban same-sex marriage. The case was remanded to a lower court, which declared that Hawaii must permit same-sex marriages because the state failed to exhibit that its ban on such marriages gathered a compelling state interest.
A hate crime is a crime, usually involving violence or intimidation committed against others based partially or entirely on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or membership in another social group.
Matthew Sheppard is one of the thousands of victims who have suffered from the form of violence known as hate crimes.
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)