Punishing the Vilest of Thoughts

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (a.k.a. – the Matthew Shepard Act) recently passed in the House by a margin of 249-175. It is designed to eradicate "bias-motivated violence", i.e. – so-called "hate crimes" – by giving out money to local authorities for the purpose of prosecuting such crimes, stipulating sentences for those found guilty, and the like.

You can read the act here. Generally speaking, hate crimes in the bill are violent "offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" and committing one gets you two punishments. So, if a white person stabs a black person and the former doesn't like black people, then that person will not only be punished for assault or attempted murder, he/she will also be punished for holding certain thoughts in their head.

This second punishment doesn't amuse Nat Hentoff who inveighed against the bill as giving the government the ability to prosecute "thought crimes". Hentoff argues that the bill violates the 14th Amendment as its intent is to create rules which don't apply equally.

Corey adds that the state "hate crime" law - like the newly expanded House of Representatives federal bill - "does not apply equally" (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead "criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories."

He also notes that the bill would violate the 5th Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". So when "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence," then the U.S. Attorney General or any minions thereof can haul the defendant into a federal court to be tried for the same crime.

I agree with Hentoff here and the Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry, whom he quotes. When someone "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse [sic] weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person", there is already plenty of malice involved regardless of whatever category you want to place the victim into and there are already laws to punish such behavior.

Unfortunately, my representative, Tammy Baldwin, voted in favor of this bill. And while President Obama is a Constitutional scholar, it seems likely he'll sign it if/when the Senate approves it. Hopefully someone will challenge this and hate crimes will go the way of the dodo. Freedom of conscience and the right not to be put into double jeopardy apply even to the lowliest and most wretched amongst us.