Dissent Blocks Tougher Hate Crime Laws

Everybody agrees it was a horrible way to treat a human being--an openly gay man beaten senseless on the Wyoming prairie and left alone to die in the frigid night tethered to a fence.

But Matthew Shepard’s death, as disturbing as it is, has only reignited a set of questions that have slowed efforts to expand federal hate crimes laws: Just what is a hate crime? Should a crime against gays and lesbians be punished differently from one against other Americans? If hate crimes are punished separately, would it deter such violence or encourage it?

Shepard’s death has given new energy to gay and lesbian activists who say existing laws fail to protect them from random violence.

“It is clear to every American that this was a hate crime,” said Jeff Montgomery, executive director of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a Michigan-based gay and lesbian rights organization. “This was a crime committed to send a message that says: ‘Fags are not wanted here.’ ”

But many others, especially fundamentalist Christian activists, argue that extending hate crime laws to gays and lesbians would go too far, creating a new class of federally protected victims.

“All crime is hate crime,” said Andrea Sheldon, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, an umbrella group of conservative religious organizations. “Is that poor boy any more dead because he was homosexual? We shouldn’t label some crimes more hateful than other crimes to advance a political agenda.”

Sheldon said Congress has no business creating what she described as a class of victimhood for gays and lesbians. “There are laws on the books to deal with crimes,” she said, adding that homosexual activists are more interested in gaining acceptance than in crime.

“The reason they bring the Feds into this debate is that it’s a way of legitimizing homosexual activity. They can’t force the culture to accept their life but they are trying to do it legislatively.”

President Clinton, in the wake of Shepard’s death, urged Congress to pass legislation already introduced in the Senate that would make it easier to prove a hate crime against gays and women. “There is something we can do about this,” Clinton said. “Congress needs to pass tough hate crimes legislation. It can do so even before it adjourns and it should do so.”

And Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has been meeting with congressional leaders since Shepard’s death, seeking ways to include the bill in budget legislation being negotiated now, according to sources on Capitol Hill and at the Justice Department. Reno’s office released a statement late Tuesday imploring Congress to “close the gap in the law” concerning hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians.

But Capitol Hill observers said it is unlikely the measure would be rushed into law without prolonged debate.

“At this point we just don’t know if there will be any legislation this year,” said Jeanne Lopatto, a spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In the last few days, interested parties have been talking about the legislation but no more hearings or meetings are scheduled.”

The lack of action by Congress on the issue outraged some on Capitol Hill. “The do-nothing Congress should have done more on hate crimes,” said Joy Howell, communications director for Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of the hate crime legislation.

“Does a person have to die to see that this issue has a face on it?” Howell asked.

The last time Congress did anything on hate crime legislation was in the wake of a headline-grabbing killing. Lawmakers conducted hearings in July as public outrage peaked after news reports that described how James Byrd, a black man in Jasper, Texas, was allegedly beaten, chained to a pickup truck and dragged by two white men with ties to white supremacy groups.

Since the summer hearings, little has happened with the legislation, however. The stalled bills would compel federal law enforcement officials to apply a single standard to crimes stemming from bias against people based on race, religion, gender, physical disability and sexual orientation.

In the meantime, state lawmakers have devised a patchwork quilt of anti-bias laws. California and 20 other states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class. Forty states have some form of hate crime laws that apply primarily on the basis of race and religion.

Under existing federal law, a person or group convicted of crimes against someone who was targeted “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation” faces stiffer federal penalties than those provided under state law.

The proposed legislation would eliminate the requirement that the government prove the perpetrator’s intent. Instead, federal prosecutors could go after hate crimes without proving that the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice.

Dr. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist in Tacoma, Wash., and a widely recognized expert on hate crimes, said she does not like the term “hate crimes” because “it assumes a motivation that I don’t think is present in many, many occasions. It assumes hate, which I don’t think is evident.”

Based on her work with prison inmates incarcerated for bias crimes, she said she believes passing laws is only symbolic.

“It doesn’t really address the problem in terms of reducing hate crimes,” she said. “It would be more fruitful to look at changing attitudes than legislation.”