Transgender

Forum













Transgender Legal Advisor

The Hate Crime Backlash: Characteristics

By Carolyn Woodward

Got a legal question? Having some problems with the law? TG Attorney Carolyn Woodward will try and answer your questions. Contact her via Email at carolynWWD@aol.com or message publisher Cindy Martin and we'll make sure she gets your question.
Last month Carolyn discussed the backlash to hate crimes. This time she responds to mail on the subject.

BK writes:

    I just finished reading your Hate Crime column and couldn't agree with you more. I just had something I wanted to discuss. Early in the piece you claimed that a hate crime is when the crime is committed because the victim has "characteristics that are inherently or constitutionally protected". There have been statements by the Laramie officials that the Matthew Shepard murder is not a hate crime because it was not committed because he was gay but rather because he was wealthier than the accused. Shouldn't that still fall under a true definition of a hate crime? Being wealthier is not a protected characteristic, but being singled out as a victim because you are wealthier should be. If robbery is the true motive that removes the hate crime aspect of such an act... but if robbery is only a side result and his class status the true reason for the attack then it should be classified as a hate crime. That is: a hate crime is a crime committed because of a characteristic of the victim that is perceived as "different and unwelcome" by the accused.

    The use of such criteria in this case might remove the conservative dislike of hate crime legislation as it then would protect a favored class in their eyes... not just the distasteful "special interests". To me it only seems to make sense, though I am sure that there are many legal obstacles to such a definition.

Carolyn Responds:

    I had heard that the whole thing started as a robbery, but it did not end up a robbery. It ended up as a murder - not because Matthew Shepard was wealthier than his assailants, but because he was gay. Robbers tend to take the money and run. Sometimes they kill their victims, mostly not, but when they do, it is usually done quickly and solely to prevent the victim from leading the police to the perpetrator. They don't take their victims out in the country, beat them, and tie them, still alive, to a fence post and leave them to die.

    I must stand by my definition of a hate crime - where the person being victimized is selected because of an inherent characteristic or exercise of a constitutionally protected right. To include wealth in such a definition would be disastrous, as well as contrary to the spirit of the constitution.

    What you propose is, as you stated, protecting a "favored" class - favored by some sectors of society in any case. Where do we go next? Lots of people are supposed to hate lawyers, or used car salesmen - let's pass laws to protect them, too. But, those are not favored groups, so their protection may be long in coming. Being wealthy, or a lawyer, or a used car salesman - these things are a matter of choice and of personal industry (except for inherited wealth, I suppose). To start legislating in this manner would set up a system of law based upon class. This we can not allow.

    Our basic premise of jurisprudence is that all are EQUAL under the law. Everyone is afforded the same rights and protections. This is the goal, and recent political events make it clear that this is a hard enough goal to attain as it is. Start setting up "favored" classes, and then some would be above the law by reason of socio-economic status. This would grant class privilege, and nullify the inherent value of each human being. The rich could kill the poor, and it would be no big deal - the poor person didn't contribute much to society anyway.

    Any hate crime legislation must, for this reason, restrict itself to inherent characteristics or constitutionally protected rights. It is because there are people out there who consider that someone else has diminished worth as a human being because they are inherently different. The wealthy are victims of those who want to acquire some of that wealth. The criminal wants the money, and the bearer of it is merely in the way. The wealthy person isn't hated because they are wealthy - unless they have stepped on people and fostered the hatred by their activities - and that is a different situation. The folks I advocate protecting are the victims by virtue of being themselves, not for their acquired assets, or for what they may have done to others. Further, the crimes against these persons are almost always crimes of violence directed to the individual. These people are not special interests. Special interest groups seek, and obtain perhaps, advantages over others. Hate crime laws, as written, and as I support, serve to level the field by putting these people on an equal footing with others. The laws acknowledge, in substance, that racial minorities, men, women, gays, lesbians, the transgendered, Jews, and Baptists are equal to all equal to each other, and have equal worth because they are PEOPLE, nothing more. It affirms the concept that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

TGF's Home Page