On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law “The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”. People are always talking about how we need such legislation to prevent “hate crimes”. The irony here is that the two murder victims that the law is named after would not have been saved even if this law were in place at the times of their deaths! I’ll explain that in just a little bit.
Some victims’ lives are now worth more than others
Let’s review some scenarios just so we can know what constitutes a “hate crime”.
SCENARIO A:
Tom is a black man having a drink in a bar. He encounters Jack, a white man who takes offense at the fact that Tom’s date is a white woman. Jack confronts Tom in a fit of rage, yelling racial slurs at him. Finally, having had enough of this, Jack stabs Tom in the neck with a large knife and kills him.
SCENARIO B:
Frank is a black man walking back to his car after enjoying a delicious steak dinner. He is suddenly accosted by Hank, another black man, who points a gun in his face and demands his wallet and car keys. Even though Frank complies with these demands, Hank decides to shoot and kill him anyway.
You see, Scenario A would be considered a “hate crime”, while scenario B would not. Is the murder of Tom a more tragic loss than the murder of Frank? Of course not. But the law will now say that Frank’s life is not worth as much as Tom’s. Jack hated Tom for dating a white woman. But Hank hated Frank for having money and a nice car!
Why should it matter? Both criminals have committed heinous crimes for which they deserve to be executed. They have violated laws that have been in place for a long time. There is no new piece of legislation that would have influenced these people.
There is no law that would have saved Matthew Shepard or James Byrd
Our hearts ache when we hear a story of a brutal and senseless murder. There are those out there who believe for some reason that a “hate crimes” law would somehow do some good. But the two idiots who murdered Matthew Shepard (Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson) and the three morons who murdered James Byrd (John William King, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and Shawn Allen Berry) committed crimes for which the already existing penalty was DEATH! They committed crimes for which the law that was in force at the time provided the option of execution as a sentence.
Since this is true, then what extra piece of legislation do you think could have possibly been enacted prior to these incidents that would have triggered this thought process: “Hey, I know that we are planning to commit a capital crime for which we can be put to death, but they passed that ‘hate crime’ law last week – maybe we should hold off on this?”
Most “hate crime” law supporters advocate a lesser penalty
As I said, all five of these murderers were facing the death penalty. McKinney and Henderson made a plea deal to avoid execution and were given two life sentences each. Since the Byrd murder happened in Texas, no such deal was offered! King and Brewer are sitting on death row while Berry, for some reason, was only sentenced to life in prison.
Most “hate crime” law supporters actually advocate a lesser penalty than the one that currently exists! They do not support the death penalty and don’t think it should be applied. If they had their way, the killers of James Byrd would have gotten a lesser sentence than they are currently serving!
We do not need “hate crimes” legislation. It is already against the law to beat someone up. It doesn’t matter if you did it because the victim is gay or because you didn’t like the shirt he was wearing. You should get locked up either way. It is already against the law to chain someone to the back of your truck and drag him behind it until he is dead. We don’t need “hate crimes” laws to tell us how to deal with this. We don’t need to ask if you did it because the guy was black. We just say, “You did this. You will die for it.”
Let’s worry less about “hate crimes” and worry more about hating crimes.
Two al-Qaeda terrorists have been apprehended by a CIA team and are currently awaiting interrogation. They have vital information that could be used to thwart a serious attack on American citizens here in the United States.
The following conversation can be heard:
| FIRST MAN: | What do you think is going to happen to us after this is over? |
| SECOND MAN: | Who knows? But I’m sure we could be looking at some serious charges. |
| FIRST MAN: | What for!? We are on the side of righteousness here! |
| SECOND MAN: | I know that. But you have to understand, the American government doesn’t see it the way we do. According to them, we are horrible people who inflict pain and suffering on the helpless for no good reason. |
| FIRST MAN: | How else are we supposed to accomplish our objectives? Simple talk is not getting it done! |
| SECOND MAN: | You don’t have to convince me. I know that what we do is right and good. But there are forces out there on a mission to put an end to our operations. |
| FIRST MAN: | You know what worries me the most? I’m afraid that their tactics are going to scare away new recruits to our cause. We cannot afford to lose this battle! |
| SECOND MAN: | We just have to do our best to counteract the powerful people out there who are helping our enemies. |
| FIRST MAN: | Well, we can’t stop the Attorney General from doing whatever he wants to do. I guess we should get in there and interrogate those terrorists now! |