‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” -The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 1.
Most of us are aware of the existence of Hate Crimes Laws. These exist at the federal level and many states also have these laws, and they provide enhanced penalties for those convicted of a violent crime where bias towards a protected class was a factor. Proponents of these laws say that they are necessary in order to ensure justice. Opponents say that they create “special protections” for protected classes and violate the 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
In October, 2009 President Obama signed into law an enhanced federal hate crimes bill that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes. This added fuel to the fire with many who oppose hate crime laws. Some opponents, mainly religious conservatives argue that these laws violate their 1st amendment right to free speech. They fear being prosecuted for “hate speech” if they were to espouse any personal or religious belief that is not supportive of those protected under hate crimes laws. However, those arguments lack real merit because the laws, as they are currently written do not deal with speech-rather they pertain to violent crimes for the most part. There is no such thing as “hate speech” in federal or state law as it currently exists. If there were, organizations such as the Aryan Nation, the KKK and the Nation of Islam would not be allowed to exist in this country.
Many racial minorities, homosexuals, transgender people and religious minorities have been assaulted and even murdered because of who they are-there is no denying that. It’s also an established fact that the perpetrators of these crimes have either not been prosecuted at all or given light sentences, especially in the Jim Crow South of the 1960s and before. The desire for laws which ensure justice is served is understandable. However, is the solution to disparities the creation of laws which mandate disparities in another direction? Hate crimes laws can result in much stiffer penalties that those in which hate crimes laws do not apply. This results in certain Americans being afforded more protection under the law than others and it is quite rational to conclude that this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the stiffer penalties given under hate crimes laws in 1993, but it will be interesting to see if that issue gets revisited in a future ruling.
In conclusion, we as Americans have the right to equal protection under the law. Creating stiffer penalties for crimes against protected classes creates unequal protection and is not the solution. Though I am personally opposed to mandatory sentencing guidelines as a general rule, perhaps the solution to the problem of violence against minorities is to enact mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. The injury, maiming or murder of any person is no less or more significant because of one’s race, color, sexual orientation or handicap. Our laws should reflect this and ensure that all violent crime is prosecuted properly. As a society of laws that aims for equality and fairness and that values life, we can do better than simply tipping the scales of justice in the opposite direction and hoping for the best, which is what Hate Crimes Laws do now. We can do better. We must do better.
No comments:
Post a Comment