The Irrelevance Of Hate Crimes

Steve Chapman writes a great piece on the 'hate crimes' legislation that just passed the Senate, essentially revealing it to be what it is: irrelevant and useless. He starts off like this:

Politicians are often accused of being irrelevant. But rarely has a group of them been so intent on proving that charge than the senators who voted last week for the "The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007."

This bill is supposed to be a brave and pioneering piece of legislation. According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, "Congress has taken an historic step forward and moved our country closer to the realization that all Americans, including the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] community, are part of the fabric of our nation."

The bill, passed by the Senate Thursday, is named for a gay man beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998. In explaining the need for this bill, co-sponsor Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., declared, "What happened to Matthew should happen to no one."

You know what? He's right. Which is why murder is against the law, even in Wyoming, and why Shepard's attackers are now serving sentences (life in prison) that would not be any longer if this law had been in effect then.

Chapman goes on to explain that Bush has promised to veto, so the bill is not likely to become law. Even if it does, it is not likely to actually accomplish anything. It targets things like race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability, but the reality is that this bill seeks to impose extra harsh penalties based on people's thoughts. It just can't happen.

He also points out that the only crimes on which this law would have any effect at all would be ones involving violence connected to interstate commerce. Otherwise, such laws are prosecuted at the local and state level, (where they belong, according to the Constitution), not the federal level.

Chapman's conclusion:

You might think it's better to do nothing than to do something irrelevant. But for a lot of senators, there's no gesture like an empty gesture.

While he's exactly right on that last point, I don't think it's quite as irrelevant as Chapman suggests, since it is an attempt to monitor people's thoughts and beliefs. It doesn't sound likely to become law, but even the attempt is disturbing. The government has already gotten into our lives, pocketbooks, health care, etc. enough; they certainly don't need to be meddling in our minds, too! Thought police, anyone?

There's my two cents.