Shepard's killers were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced without hate-crime law
I have high regard for Rabbi Fred Guttman, whom I know by reputation as a great humanitarian. But I don't agree with his column today, "Hate crime legislation essential."
If you didn't know anything about the revolting Matthew Shepard case, you'd get the impression from Rabbi Guttman's column that his killers got off free and clear because there was no federal hate-crime law protecting gay people.
"Although Shepard's murder was a clear example of homophobia-driven violence, local law enforcement in Laramie lacked the funds to prosecute the attack as a hate crime, furloughing five officers to cover the costs of the case," Guttman wrote.
In fact, the state of Wyoming did prosecute the case, and Shepard's killers were each sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison. The man deemed primarily responsible, Aaron McKinney, was spared the death sentence because of the intervention of Shepard's parents, an act that speaks volumes about their grace in terrible circumstances.
If Laramie authorities had to furlough five officers to cover the costs of prosecuting this case, it seems they would have had to do so for the prosecution of any murder case.
The question is what more could a federal hate-crime prosecution have contributed to the cause of justice. Maybe a third consecutive life term for the killers?
The purpose of hate-crimes laws is said to be protection of people who are singled out because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or some other characteristic. How far should the law go to extend special protected status? Two young men were attacked on the A&T campus the other night apparently because of the colors they were wearing. Would that incident demand a federal hate-crime prosecution?
For most of this country's history, to its shame, many people were not afforded equal protection under the law. There were countless crimes against members of minority groups, blacks especially, that were never punished.
Although those days are gone, we still have to make sure that the law protects the rights of everyone without regard to race, gender or other factors. It shouldn't provide additional protection to some because of race, gender or other special factors.
The law dealt with Matthew Shepard's murderers, exactly as it should have and just as it should in every other case, no matter the victim.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Once again Doug, we have you going after somebody for interjecting their personal politics into situations where they don't belong, and rightfully so.
"We still need to make sure the law protects the rights of everyone without regard to race or gender", sort of like was accorded David Wray, huh? But again, nothing from the Dougster on this subject. ?????
Oh that's right. Wyoming is far away. Out in the pasture although out there I guess you would say out on the prarie.
There is a young Cowboy who lives on the range...
Goodnight ye New Light ladies
Rockabye Sweet Baby Doug.
Deep Greens and blues (make yellow)are the colors Doug choose.
Won't you let him go down in his dreams.
And Rockebye Sweet Baby Doug!
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:01 AM
Yes, this is terrible legislation, not least because it federalizes, with no Constitutional support, another huge chunk of criminal behavior. It also politicizes criminal justice by privileging certain groups (gays) over others (people with $20 in their pocket). When we start making discriminations over which premeditated murder is worse--the murder of a gay man or a woman being raped--we are entering a domain of symbolic action that the law ought to properly avoid. Punish the crime--as was done, as you say, in this case.
As for the misleading rhetoric in the column, that is par for the course for Mr. Guttman. Every column he writes, IMO, distills a complex moral and political question into the most banal opposition between good and bad.
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:11 AM
Was not the main thrust the Rabbi advocating the hate crime thing more as a means of paying for the trial?
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:16 AM
Was not the main thrust the Rabbi advocating the hate crime thing more as a means of paying for the trial?
I don't think so. He seems to be saying there should have been an additional federal prosecution.
The feds don't pay for the prosecution of state crimes. In this case, the state of Wyoming met its obligation to prosecute he case.
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:27 AM
Damn this software. That was me above.
Posted on November 2, 2007 12:09 PM
Doug:
We make many distinctions in crimes and sentencing based on intentions. For instance, a murder that's judged to be terror-related is (and should be) treated more harshly than an "ordinary" murder. Similarly, a murder of a criminal witness would be treated differently than an ordinary murder. If part of the intent of the crime is to intimidate a particular group and a prosecutor can demonstrate that intent, a "hate" crime provision makes sense.
We also make distinctions based on the brutality of the crime. Torture preceding murder is and should be treated more harshly than simple murder. We could view debasing treatment as a sufficiently aggravating circumstance to merit punishment.
A question though about most hate crime proposals is whether they really address intentions and behavior or just change the penalties for particular combinations of perpetrators and victims.
There is a second issue regarding penalties. Obviously, once someone has been subjected to the maximum sentence that a court can impose, there is little to be gained from piling on additional charges--except to reduce the possibility of subsequent pardon or parole (but this of course gets back to whether the initial sentence was actually a maximum).
Posted on November 2, 2007 2:28 PM
Evaluating aggravating or mitigating factors when imposing sentences can be appropriate, although that's a task I think could confuse juries. At any rate, you're on safer ground when dealing with criminal actions than supposedly criminal thoughts or speech.
Posted on November 2, 2007 2:41 PM
I read with interest Rabbi Guttman's piece.
It brought to mind the so-called " Wichita Horror". I'll ask if this was a hate crime and if there was a hate cime statute on the books in Kansas when these 3 random and brutal murders were committed what more would that have added ?
The below link has 12 short chapters of chilling narrative about this crime, its impact on the community and the aftermath. If you take the time to read them, and I hope you do, just imagine how it would have affected Greensboro.
The Wichita Massacre
Posted on November 4, 2007 5:48 PM