Friday, June 29, 2007

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Action

So, I completed the HRC action alert urging members of the United States Senate to vote in favor of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Here is a portion of the text I received back in the (cough, cough), “thank you for writing” response from Senator Mitch McConnell’s camp. “In my view, all violent crime is malicious or hateful. Victims of violent crime suffer regardless of the motive of the criminal. I also am concerned that the creation of federal hate crimes will result in an ill-considered allocation of resources. State and local law enforcement are trained to respond to violent crime, but federal authorities are tasked with investigation of uniquely federal matters such as international terrorism or organized crime. Therefore, I believe that instead of creating new federal hate crime laws, we should devote our resources to effective enforcement of existing criminal laws. I am also mindful of the concerns of many who feel that the bill will lead to an expansion of federal authority that could chill or eventually prohibit many forms of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I support the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion and will carefully scrutinize legislation that might infringe these protections.” The letter went further to reference the administration’s stand on the bill violating the U.S. Constitution and that “state and local criminal laws already provide sufficient penalties for the violence addressed by the legislation.” So, what’s your opinion? Is it going to happen?

~Jody

3 comments:

Admin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Admin said...

We issued an action alert about this in May. Ben Chandler responded to the 176 emails sent to him saying he would give it "due consideration" if it made it out of committee.

You have a nice blog Jodi, we added a link to it on our Blog Roll. Keep up the great work.

All the best,

-Jordan Palmer

Anonymous said...

Wow, I like how Sen. McConnell clearly explains his position on the bill. I spoke to a friend of mine that is a very hardline republican, and he explained his view much more clearly and almost logically. What Sen. McConnell was trying to say is that he is afraid that by protecting certain groups, we de-emphasize crimes not committed on the basis of hate. My friend also informed me that many people interpret the bill as a potential way of making a person's expression concerning any matter related to any of the bill's protected classes as a crime. My friend did say that he personally does not believe that it is the bill's intent, and that he really does not see a practical way for the bill to be misused as it is written to inhibit one's First Amendment rights, and as much as we would love to jail people over bigoted and hateful comments, we do have to stop and remember that the First Amendment also protects us.

OK, I do have to admit that I just sounded extremely conservative in my comments, but I assure you I am merely paraphrasing things as a friend explained them to me. Personally, I believe a hate crimes bill is an unfortunate necessity. In many jurisdictions, including the one that I live in, crimes whose sole basis is hate would not be, in my opinion, prosecuted or enforced as throughly and as vigorously as they should be. Yes, we have all seen "Law and Order" and seen how the television prosecutors put their personal thoughts aside to fully and vigorously prosecute an individual; however, I would dare say that this ideal situation is just as much of a fantasy as expecting the Teletubbies to personally visit your house. I do feel like some sort of Federal oversight and involvement in the thorough and adequate prosecution of all crimes, especially ones motivated by hate, is greatly needed. It is most definitely not occurring on the state level. I do agree with my friend to an extent; this bill, in an ideal world, would be pointless. But, let's face it, if our nation were truly a land of completely fair and open-minded people, where there was no hate, we probably wouldn't need much of a criminal justice system at all.