Federal Bill on Hate Crimes

Contrary to the belief of James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter (Commentary, July 27), the Hate Crime Prevention Act is necessary to eliminate gaps in federal authority to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes. While bigotry cannot be outlawed, hate crime penalty enhancement statutes demonstrate an important commitment to confront criminal activity motivated by prejudice. Federal authorities must have jurisdiction to address those cases in which local authorities are either unable or unwilling to act.

Neither the sponsors nor the supporters of this measure expect that federal prosecutors will seek to investigate and prosecute every bias crime as a federal criminal civil rights violation. The vast majority of bias-motivated crimes should be handled by state and local law enforcement officials. But some crimes will merit federal involvement--for exactly the same reasons that Congress in 1968 determined that certain crimes directed at individuals because of “race, color, religion or national origin” require a federal remedy.

The fundamental cause of bias-motivated violence in the U.S. is the persistence of racism, bigotry and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, there are not quick, complete solutions to these problems. Ultimately, the impact of all bias crime initiatives will be measured in the response of the criminal justice system to the individual act of hate violence.

STEVEN D. WEINBERG

Chair, Civil Rights Committee

Anti-Defamation League

Los Angeles

*

* We need federal legislation to guide states to create laws that are then consistent with those federal laws. Potter and Jacobs admit that some lawmakers are opposed to protections for persons who are homosexual. The same lawmakers would certainly fight similar protections in their states. Other lawmakers are against civil rights legislation for persons of color. An ugly piece of American tradition is intolerance and ethnocentrism. Without federal protections, some of our citizens may only be a state line away from harassment. The authors are correct in the minimal usage of such federal laws--precisely because the states have enacted similar laws after being ordered to do so by federal laws.

BEN ADAMS

Los Angeles