Human Rights and Matthew Shepard

22nd May 2007

Human Rights and Matthew Shepard

posted in Politics by themaiden |

The Human Rights Campaign has asked me, via email, to “Take Action: Tell your Senators: Pass the Matthew Shepard Act”.

Well, I can’t do that. The Matthew Shepard Act is a law against thought, not behavior. Sen. Gordon Smith apparently disagrees– “This act is about the prosecution of crime, not prohibition of speech”– and I am sure that many are with him on that, but the position just makes no sense. From the summary of the act:

Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that… is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

H.R.1592

What this means in no uncertain terms is that prosecution of a crime is at least partially dependent upon the opinions, the convictions, and the beliefs, of the person who committed the crime. There is no way to reasonably spin this as anything other than prosecution for ‘thought crime’. The law cannot concern itself with the underlying motivation for the crime, except for the issue of self-defense. As I wrote in another post:

The law has to focus on the criminal behavior itself and not on the motivation for that behavior. Motivation, really, is thought– opinion, conviction, belief– tacking on ‘extra’ punishment for crimes committed due to particular motivations is tacking on punishment for holding unpopular thoughts. Not acceptable.

Distasteful vs. Illegal

Sorry. I can’t do it… even if, as the Human Rights Campaign letter states, “three in four (or 68%) support expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and giving local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute these tragic acts of bigotry.”

Yes, these acts are tragic. Yes, it is bigotry. But I cannot support ‘extra’ prosecution because of the opinions the criminals might hold. It is fundamental to my political principles, and I thought it was fundamental to the spirit that birthed the United States, that people get to believe whatever they want. This law spits in the face of that idea.

People here in the United States, so I thought, get to do whatever they want up until that behavior harms someone else, at which point the law steps in and addresses the behavior, not the motivation. The behavior is already being addressed. There are laws against murder, lynching, rape, vandalism, etc.. Those laws could be strenghtened perhaps, but they ought to be strengthened across the board. Law enforcement could be better funded and better supplied with “tools and resources”, but again, this should be across the board. The Federal government could justifiably pass laws ensuring that crimes are prosecuted consistently, that crimes against certain sub-sets of the population are not overlooked or underprosecuted, but stepping further than that is creating classes of ‘thought crime’.

Popularity: 1%

Love the post? Hate it? Please let me know. Leave a comment and spread the word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On May 25th, 2007, Doesn't matter said:

To read that someone thinks that this law spits in the face of American ideals is heart wrenching. How ignorant of a country we have become. How sad, how very sad of a person one must be to feel that way. Listen the law was passed based on race and other discrepencies. Why not throw in gender identity? We came to the US to end oppression and it sounds like you just want to continue the 19th century British tyranny my family members shed blood and died to oppose. From TRUE americans hearts we would like to say “FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!”

2 On May 25th, 2007, themaiden said:

Heartbreaking?

You think that ‘extra’ prosecution based upon what a person thinks is an American ideal? You think that prosecuting thought is a good happy all american plan? That, Doesn’t matter, is sad.

I thought it was pretty much inarguable that we prosecute actions not opinions. And I’d be thrilled to have actions like murder prosecuted fully, but extra prosecution based upon the contents of someone’s mind is simply wrong. And that, in a nutshell, is what legislation like this amounts to. You are really talking about two crimes. One crime is the murder, the violence inflicted upon another person. That crime is covered by existing law. But hate-crime laws add a second crime, and that second crime is entirely dependent upon what exists in the criminal’s head.

3 On July 12th, 2007, Brian said:

I agree with both of you and let me explain how. Yes our country was founded on the ideals of freedom. Our opinions, beliefs and ideas were to be a non governed, independent choice. Our great, great, great grandfathers gave their lives to keep the british from taking our freedom away.

Then once again we rallied and pitted brother against brother and father against son to uphold the basis america was founded on not only freedom but equality. Without equality our country would surely have degraded into a monarchy type system with tyrannical rulers enforcing their beliefs above others. Our forefathers’ sacrifice to establish this countries freedom was no longer in danger of collapsing.

So yes it is our blood given rite to have any opinion we choose. The choice to be independent and to be individuals is what led to our economic success and all the modern technological advances we have. There can be no progress to benefit the good of everyone if we are forced to conform to morals or ideas we can’t bring ourselves to accept or condone. That is where the line was drawn. This was forseen by our predecessors.

Freedom of expression is ours to wield independently, but as a country united together under those beliefs humanity and tolerance must also be embraced by the masses.

The value of human life is priceless, and every man woman and child in this country knows the repercussions for striking down another human being. Whether the motivation is part of ones belief system or whether it’s purely senseless, taking a life is taking a life. There should be no circumstances allowed beyond defending oneself that justify such despicable behavior.

Murder is murder I don’t see how the severity of the punishment should be altered due to a variation of beliefs.

We shouldn’t force our ideas on others to start with. We instinctually understand what is socially and morally acceptable. You don’t fornicate with children or animals and you don’t commit actions in cold blood and with the factored in handfull of some who may not be at full mental capacity because of underlying disorders the majority of us know in our very being know the difference between self expression and unacceptable actions.

4 On July 12th, 2007, themaiden said:

Thanks Brian. It is good to get a little support on this one.

5 On July 19th, 2007, Lets not become 'Them' | hell's handmaiden said:

[...] Human Rights and Matthew Shepard [...]

6 On December 22nd, 2007, Hate Crime == Thought Crime | hell's handmaiden said:

7 On December 29th, 2007, Aaron said:

Funny how people say murder is murder, but doctors murder thousands of babies a year, and feminists merely want you to think it is a woman’s right. About the same right as me walking past someone on the street and shooting them in the head. This country needs to return to God, before it tears itself apart.

8 On December 30th, 2007, themaiden said:

Aaron,

This thread is not about abortion and I won’t talk about it here. There are posts specifically about abortion on this blog, if you are interested. I particularly like Was the chicken alive? and Pope: “Little balls of goo are human.” but do also take a look at There are abortion arguments, Baby killing, Our time has come!!! KILL ROEvWADE!!! KILL!!! KILL!!!! and Noonan guts an Anti-Abortion Talking Point.

9 On March 27th, 2008, DaemonRai said:

The laws in this country have always taken into account state of mind at the time the crime was committed. Was there intent? Was the killing an accident? Was it premeditated or a heat of the moment killing? If murder was murder and that was that, then hitting a man with your car when he ran out into the street would be the same as shooting your wife’s lover when you came home and caught them in bed together, which would be the same as planning and carrying out the murder of your husband for his insurance money. The reasons for the action have always mattered.

To say that this is any anyway the prosecution of a thought crime is ludicrous. There is no law against being prejudice. This doesn’t add a law making being prejudice illegal. This just takes into account prejudices when determining motives for crimes (as in actions that are already illegal). Crimes of premeditation already carry heavier penalties than crimes of passion, this just adds an extra classification when determining penalties.

10 On March 31st, 2008, themaiden said:

DaemonRai,

True, US law does take into account a person’s state of mind but this is to avoid prosecuting the bloody insane on the one hand, and to avoid on the other hand prosecuting accidents as murder. You mention accidents but I’m at a loss as to how you get from ‘murder is murder’ to ‘an accident is murder’.

To say that this is any anyway the prosecution of a thought crime is ludicrous.

So, let’s see. “Bad thought” == more punishment. But that doesn’t make the bad thought illegal? “Prejudice” is relevant to the prosecution and the punishment but that doesn’t make the “prejudice” in a very significant way illegal? You aren’t making sense.

Your last line, by the way, undercuts your entire stance and makes my point for me. We’ve already got laws that handle these situations. Perhaps they are not sufficiently enforced but they are there. These hate crime laws are 1)political huff-and-puff aimed at making headlines and getting votes, and 2) god-damned dangerous erosions of civil liberties.

11 On March 31st, 2008, Huey55 said:

Maiden,

What ever gave you this silly thought? “People here in the United States, so I thought, get to do whatever they want up until that behavior harms someone else” We only get to do whatever our masters let us. Haven’t you ever heard of vice crimes? I agree that people should not get extra punishment for “Hate Crimes” just because of what goes on in a persons head. If you believe in Democracy though that 68% makes it a legitimate law though.