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…
to whom he revealed his sexuality. The two men agreed to give Matthew a ride home, once Matthew was in the truck he was robbed of his wallet, keys, and shoes. Russell and Aaron then drove to a remote location and proceeded to pistol-whip Matthew, he was then tied to a fence and left to die. It took 18 hours for someone to find him still tied to the fence and in a coma. Matthew was covered in blood and suffered severe head and spine wounds. He would die 6 days later. Aaron and Russell were initially charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The attempted murder was then changed to first degree murder once Matthew died. During trial Aaron and Russell claimed that they pretended to be gay in order to lure Matthew into their truck. Aaron claimed that Matthew grabbed his leg, in his response he reached for his pistol and hit him with it. Aarons’ girlfriend claimed that the violence was a “panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance” (Brook,1999). This was no longer just an act of violence. It was an act of biased-based violence. The Policy On October 28, 2009, over a decade after Matthew Shepard was murdered in cold blood, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA).
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…
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 2009). Proponents of the HCPA feel that it is necessary because violent incidents against gay and lesbian occur often by peers, strangers, and even family members. A study done on gay men between the ages of 14-21 found that of the 192 participants one third stated they had been verbally assaulted by at least one family member (Kitts, 2005). They also feel that hate crimes are separate crimes and should be prosecuted in such a way. There were many opponents to the HCPA their main arguments were; existing laws were efficient enough and new laws would only add to the problem of over criminalization, singling out certain groups meant that crimes against other groups were not as important, and many raised concerns that the new law would be unconstitutional (Trout, 2015) The target populations in regard to this act are; victims of hate crimes due to their perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity, and or disability, perpetrators, and law enforcement officials. The effect The intended effect of the HCPA was to broaden the definition of hate crimes law of 1969 to include crimes motivated by a person’s perceived or actual gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
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
practical. Implication of the Policy Perpetrators of hate crimes are now Alternative policies The HCPA took years to make its was through congress and eventually got signed in 2009 by President Obama. Although there as been talk of the acts unconstitutionality the act has never been tested. The lack of definition describing the victims of hate these crimes gives some states the ability to protect certain people and other states the opportunity to leave those people out. Many terms such as “disability” are not defined (Erba, 2014). Disabilities fall into a wide range category; one person’s perception of a disability could be completely different from another person. For now, the policy states that a hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by a persons actual or perceived race, religion, gender, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. In the future, an amendment to this act needs to be made to include every person that falls in those categories. With the lack of justification and definition people are making their own definitions and victims are being left out. The Vagueness of the act needs to be addressed so that every person can be protected by the law. Conclusion When President Obama signed this act into congress his intentions were good. What happened to Matthew Shepard was a terrible thing and no other person should be treated the way he was or have to ender the trauma he was put through before his death because of his sexual orientation. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 sought to close the gap so no one else had to go though what he went though. The federal government now had the funds to look into crimes that stirred because of hate. People no longer needed to be participating in a federally protected activity in order for their crime to be considered a hate crime. With all the good that the act intended the vagueness left out people in some states that have been victims but with the lack of definition they were not considered a victim. By amending the law to include definition everyone who has been a victim or will be a victim of a hate crime can be protected.
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
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...
...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.
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.
In conclusion, Heidi Hurd did a passable job in explaining both parts of the discussion. Based on her article I have come to the conclusion that this is a topic not easily solved. With every argument that the people in favor of hate crime legislation those against are able to oppose it with their own. It is simple not possible to generalize case because although they may be similar they are never the same. Discrimination, hate, and prejudice has always been and will continue to be a topic discussed for many years.
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.
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.
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
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...
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)
Matthew Sheppard is one of the thousands of victims who have suffered from the form of violence known as hate crimes.