A discussion thread recently started to which I was drawn in. I am not sure exactly how the whole thing started, like so many discussions on the internet. I think the subject may have gotten started with some stories in the media earlier in the week focusing on hate crimes against homosexuals. As the discussion progressed I pointed out that in some jurisdictions the law protected other categories, not just homosexuals.
Originally my comments came from the legal training I received, but as my mind began to turn things over, the subject began to turn personal. More on that in a moment. I want to talk about history first. The first that I recall hearing the term "hate crime" is in connection with the murder of James Byrd in June 1998. The violence of his murder shocked the conscience of many. The facts are so gruesome I am tempted to recount them, just as a reminder to people of what a hate crime really is. Instead, I will simply say that Mr. Byrd was beheaded. Here is a link to a September 2011 story that recounts the facts as it profiled Lawrence Brewer shortly before his execution. http://www.kens5.com/news/130314468.html
In a bill signing ceremony on May 11, 2001, not long after becoming Governor, Rick Perry said:
As the Governor of our diverse state, in all matters it is my desire to seek common ground for the common good. In the end, we are all Texans and we must be united as we walk together into the future. That’s why today I have signed House Bill 587 into law. Texas has always been a tough-on-crime state. With my signature today, Texas now has stronger criminal penalties against crime motivated by hate.
I was at the dinner when the Human Rights Campaign honored the family of James Byrd for their work with the Texas legislature to include gays in the classes of persons protected by the Texas hate crimes law. And I can't remember for certain, but I believe it was the same dinner (it may have been a different year), that Matthew Shepherd's mother was honored for her work to raise awareness about crimes committed against gays. Coincidentally, Matthew Shepherd's death was only a few months after James Byrd's.
In our society we have a long history of deciding to draw lines about crimes, including classes of persons or definitions because of certain preferences. For examples, in Texas it is a capital offense to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of a police officer. And, of course, there is a definition of "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the Texas Penal Code along with the other culpable mental states of "recklessly" and "criminally negligent." Another class of persons that Texas has determined to protect by calling the crime a capital offense is children under the age of ten. Additionally, if multiple murders are committed during the same criminal act (which can involve a series of events), that can be deemed a capital offense.
For a poor law student back in the early '80s, trying to sort all of this out in her little brain was difficult. But as my esteemed criminal law professor told us, "We are in the business of drawing lines." I will never forget a wonderful back and forth in classic Socratic style in which Professor Blakely quizzed one of my fellow scholars about the "lines" drawn for statutory rape, particularly whether the victim is 16 or is only 13. Student's classic response: "If she is 16, he is guilty. If she is 13, he is very, very guilty."
Now, bringing this back to the personal, I began to think early this morning about my grandchildren. I wondered how I would feel if one of them were targeted, the victim of a hate crime. Purists will say that any crime is a hate crime, and creating a two-tiered system of justice is bad. I completely understand the argument. But we do not live in a pure society. We live in one in which gay-bashing still occurs. Lesbians are raped because men think it will "cure" them. People are in hospitals or morgues solely because of the color of their skin or the name on their birth certificates. That is the reality of today's world. I am trying to change it with love, but it is still filled with hate.
If my beloved grandchild is assaulted or killed because of his ethnicity, because he is Asian, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue -- I am a pragmatist, and I will support that decision. If one of my beloved grandchildren is gay and is assaulted or killed because he or she is gay, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue, again, I will support that decision. Under this Nana's Law, harming one of her grandchildren is a Capital Offense.
Do I believe in the dealth penalty? No. The Higher Power takes care of any death penalty.
Do I believe in life without parole? You betcha.
As someone who fully supported the death penalty for their entire life, I've found myself wavering in those beliefs over the past year or so. I won't go so far as to say I am 100% against it, but I think as a society it is a crutch that we lean on far too often. As someone who has had friends murdered, I know the anger and passion one can feel when they've had someone taken from them. I know the hatred you feel when you look at someone and all you want is for that person to pay for their crimes with their life. We live in a society that trumpets "an eye for an eye". But as a person who believes in redemption and as a person who believes God is the ultimate judge, I am learning that it's not always mans right to make the final judgement.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you are getting a bit more of the bigger picture in perspective ...
Delete