FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 2009
Federal Civil Rights Commission Warns Hate Crimes Bill Poses “Menace” to Civil Liberties
From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith
The US Commission on Civil Rights has now weighed in the hatecrimes debate, imploring the Senate to vote against the measure, which would not only make homosexuals a protected group, but more importantly would allow the federal government to have an individual prosecuted a second time under its rules for the same crime.The federal commission sent the communiqué, dated June 16, to sixteen leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which was then posted by National Review’s blog, the Corner, by Peter Kirsanow.
The letter comes just as leading Senate Democrats have confirmed that a vote on Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (MSHCPA - S. 909) will come sometime before the end of the August recess, but not this week, contradicting an earlier report based on information provided by an unnamed source to the Washington Blade. The letter is a reiteration of the commissioners concerns, which were delivered to House leaders back in April.
“We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm,” states the commissioners’ letter, warning that, “Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries — as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago.”
The commissioners’ letter stated that although the US Constitution forbids an individual from “double jeopardy” – being tried by the government twice for the same offense – there are no protections in place under the Constitution for prosecution by “dual sovereigns” - indicating that the “hate crimes” bill opens up an individual to a double prosecution by state and federal government, violating the spirit of the law, but technically not the letter.
“We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties,” stated the commissioners. They pointed out that the loophole to “double jeopardy” exists because the authors of the Bill of Rights “never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.”
They continue that the law as written does not merely require “the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict.” Instead, “It is sufficient if he acts ‘because of’ someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”
The letter indicates that “prosecutors will have ‘two bites at the apple’ for a very large number of crimes,” because the objective language of the law opens up the possibility that individuals accused of a crime that is perceived to fill any one of the “hate crimes” criteria could face trial twice. The letter gives the example that those accused with rape or robbing a disabled victim, could face trial twice for the same crime, because the victims in these circumstances “literally … are chosen ‘because of’ their gender or disability.”
“DOJ [Department of Justice] officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions,” continued the letter.
“Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.”
The Senate bill (S. 909), along with its companion legislation in the House (H.R. 1913), adds "sexual orientation" and “gender identity” as well as race, religion, class, gender, and disability to categories that are protected as "hate crimes.” Under this legislation, crimes against individuals who belong to the protected classes receive stiffer penalties than crimes against other groups not mentioned by the bill, a fact that critics charge makes “second class citizens” out of those not covered by the law.
Christian leaders have expressed particular concern that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" simply because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the Congressman who introduced H.R. 1913, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable.
Legislators opposed to the measure have also called it the "pedophile protection act," after House members refused to approve an amendment specifying that the bill define “sexual orientation,” an oversight that some legislators charge could lead to a too broad interpretation – since the term is used by the American Psychiatric Association to encompass over 547 sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.
WorldNetDaily reports that sources in the Senate tell them the campaign protesting the passage of “hate crimes” – which has generated at least 625,000 letters sent to Senators – has altered the dynamics in the Senate, where they had expected the vote on the bill to proceed smoothly.
Senate Hate-Crimes Bill [Peter Kirsanow]The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:
June 16, 2009
The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr., President, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Majority Whip, U.S. SenateThe Honorable Jon Kyl, Minority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Russell Feingold, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
Re: S. 909
Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:
We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)
We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.
While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider:
*Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.
*A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.
While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA,some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a “hate crime” in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have “two bites at the apple” for a very large number of crimes.
DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade ago involving an attack on a black man by three white hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.
Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why interfere with their judgment?
We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with your questions or comments.
Two things struck Waldo about the NRO post. As Dr. Seuss might have said, Thing One: this is not, in its tone, a consensus letter, especially when read in the tradition of the US Commission on Civil Rights. Thing Two: there are no signatories on it.
That raises some major flags.
Antennae alert, we pressed on.
Are there any major media reports on this communique? Waldo was curious. In a word: no.
We jogged over to the Civil Rights Commission website and searched for S. 909. Here's what we got:
Search Results
Searching for S. 909.
No documents matching your query were found.
For suggestions on how to broaden your search, see Search Tips.
From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. SmithThe US Commission on Civil Rights has now weighed in the hatecrimes debate, imploring the Senate to vote against the measure, which would not only make homosexuals a protected group, but more importantly would allow the federal government to have an individual prosecuted a second time under its rules for the same crime.
The federal commission sent the communiqué, dated June 16, to sixteen leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which was then posted by National Review’s blog, the Corner, by Peter Kirsanow.
The right is starting to make some noise about a June 16 letter from the US Commission on Civil Rights to key Senators regarding S.909 (the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act). The GOP dominated Commission is pretending that there are no federal hate crimes laws currently in effect. Of course that's not the case. The pending bill adds sexual orientation and sexual identity to the protected classes that were included in the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994."
The US Commission on Civil Rights paints a dire picture of a flumoxed legal system with double jeopardy issues (citing the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases). Then they discuss the perils of a rapist who targets women and, thus, could be accused of a hate crime. If that wasn't enough they express concern for a robber who targets women. That causes me to ask where are all the rapists and robbers with hate crime sentence enhancements? Answer: There aren't any.
Confused? Well first you have to understand the process and then look at who signed the letter:
The United States Commission on Civil Rights is composed of eight Commissioners: four appointed by the President and four by Congress. Not more than four members shall at any one time be of the same political party. The President also designates the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the Commission's members with the concurrence of a majority of the Commission's members.The Commissioners serve 6-year terms. No Senate confirmation is required. The President may remove a member of the Commission only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Here is the current composition of the Commission which, in spite of the above, is really comprised of six Republicans and two Democrats. What a shock!
Name Political Affiliation Appointed by Gerald A. Reynolds Chairman Republican Bush Abigail Thernstrom Vice Chair Republican Bush Peter Kirsanow Republican Bush Ashley Taylor, Jr. Republican Bush Arlen Melendez Democrat Congress Michael Yaki Democrat Congress Gail Heriot Independent Congress Todd Gaziano Independent Congress
It is important to note that "independent" Gail Heriot was a Judiciary Committee staffer appointed by Orin Hatch. "Independent" Todd Gaziano is employed by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation. Commissioners Melendez and Yaki voted in opposition to the letter.
And that seems to be that. It certainly reveals how the commission saw no irony in imposing Daniel J. Cassidy on South Carolina. And it shows how you can use democracy to advance a government body's statutory ends, or how you can use democracy to subvert them. The US Commission on Civil Rights has become a body devoted to denying people civil rights, and rolling back time to when middle aged, white, Republican males roamed the earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment