Federal Hate Crime Law Would Erode Civil Liberties

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-federal-hate-crime-law-would-erode-civil-liberties
Competitive Enterprise Institute
4/27/09

On April 23, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-to-12 to approve a dramatic expansion of the federal hate-crimes law. The bill, H.R. 1913, would add gender, sexual orientation, and transgender characteristics to a law originally designed to protect racial minorities. It also greatly expands the law's reach over local offenses typically handled by state prosecutors, by eliminating many jurisdictional limits.

The bill would allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. Many supporters of the federal hate crimes bill want to allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, "the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails." The claim that the justice system has "failed" when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

The claim that the justice system has "failed" when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

Its also a clear violation of double jeopardy.

QuoteTwo Officers Indicted in Sexual Assault Case
By Al Baker
A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict two New York City police officers in the December rape of a woman who claimed she was sexually attacked after the officers escorted her from a taxicab to her apartment in the East Village while she was intoxicated, according to law enforcement officials and other people familiar with the case.

Yes give the law more power.

Quote from: tekla on April 27, 2009, 01:30:29 PM
The claim that the justice system has "failed" when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

Its also a clear violation of double jeopardy.

I second that, I've always found it quite frightening that the Feds have this power.

It's not so much the use of such laws today that concern me, its the government(s) of the unforeseen future that  concern me.

I think it was Reagan who noted, "freedom is as little as one generation away from being lost."

This is a good law, with its origins in the Emmitt Till case.  Till was a 15 year old black man, who was brutally murdered in Misssissippi, for allegedly whistling at a white woman in 1955.  Although the murderers were identified by eyewitnesses, they were acquitted by an all-white jury that deliberated only for 69 minutes.  The murderers then sold their story to Life magazine, and admitted they had done the crime.

The purpose of this law is to make it impossible for a local community to nullify laws by holding sham trials.  An innocent person is unlikely to be victimized by this law, as they would still have a fair trial at the Federal level.  But a victim of a hate crime is more likely to have justice served, with the Federal law as a backup to insure that injustice at the local level can be corrected.

As far as I understand, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion, race, color, SEX, age, disability or national origin. I feel that hate crimes should follow suit. "You sought to harm someone physically because they were different? Well, that's OK, you were not in a work place setting."    Does it violate anyones civil liberty's to say....Sorry,you can't go harming others. Regardless of how you feel about them at any time or place

What the original law did was give the Federal Government the power to take over the case BEFORE it went to a local court.  OK, that's key, that BEFORE deal.  What the expansion seeks is the ability to suspend the Constitution and go ahead and RETRY the case AFTER its already been through court once.  That kids is a huge difference.

The original sought to simply move the jurisdiction, what this enhancement is going to do is to NULLIFY the prior case if the Feds don't like the outcome. 

I refer you to the Constitution of the United States of America, 5th Amendment: nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

From FindLaw: ''The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.''

Remember the riots in LA after the State of CA acquital in the first trial of the cops involved in the Rodney King case?

Next the Feds tried the same cops for the same crime but changed the charges to be, "violation of civil rights."

This law as written would take that kind of case one step further... dont like the results in State court, retry in Federal court ON THE SAME CHARGES.

Now I have seen it all.  People in a persecuted minority objecting to a law that protects them.

The cops in the King case were GUILTY.  But the local jury decided it was ok or cops to terrorize black people, if they were doing it to protect white people.  Blacks rioted for good reason, and the feds were right to prosecute.

People in a persecuted minority require the assistance of the legal framework in society for some protection. No argument there. However, what's protected if the government gets a crack at someone until they finally put together a case or find a jury that will convict?

I think the arguers above are simply saying that a bad precedent is set if the government is allowed to continuously takes shots at prosecuting until one works. That seems a totally sane way to think to me. It defintely violates the "double jeopardy" constitutional clause.

If, as tekla suggested, a prosecution is "taken over" by the Feds before the case actually goes to trial that is one thing. If it is re-done until it works, that is an entirely different matter.

Nichole

There was an old commercial for some stomach product were the tag line was "Anything you eat can turn on you."  So too with law.

People in a persecuted minority objecting to a law that protects them.  Ok, so it seems to you now, but it could sure be turned against you real quick also.  Big trans rights trial going to happen in SF.  God no, we can't let that happen, so move it to rural Ohio and get the verdict you really want.  Don't think it would not happen.  It already has in many cases, in fact, it happened in you very 'proof' case.

Aside from the entire Constitution deal, it also amounts to venue shopping.  This happened years and years ago now when Harry Reams was put on trial in Kentucky for making an obscene movie that violated local standards of decency.  Trouble was old Harry lived in LA, and the movie was made in the LA area.  So, why no trial in LA?  Because they knew he wasn't going to get convicted in LA.  No way.  So, off to Kentucky.

So too with the King trial.  Had that been done where it should have been done, i.e. - in LA itself, the outcome would have been different.  Those cops got off in large part because the trial was moved out of LA and into Simi Valley, perhaps the whitest place in Cali. 

As much as I want to see a nationwide law protecting us all, this one, with the Federal userpation of a local/state verdict is not the one we need. I agree with tekla and others who feel an overstep of the Feds (constitutionally) in an effort to "help" our cause, may well be able to be used against us later.

I for one do not wish to relinquish my right and others to no chance at double jeopardy. This bill needs that aspect of it stripped from the language.


Dawn

The constitutional principal on whether this law would violate double jeopardy hinges on article 4 section 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

It could be interpreted that such a gross miscarriage of justice as acquitting someone who is obviously guilty of committing a hate crime indicates that the state in question no longer has a republican form of government and the federal government must take over. Whether that interpretation is valid would be up to the Supreme Court to determine.

Thank God I am among fellow "Federalists."

As I stated in a previous post of mine, its not the use of the law today that concerns me most, its the intent of those using it in the future.

This is most definitly one of those "slippery slope" issues.

I think I just might sit down at Barnes and Noble with a Starbucks and a copy of  "the Federalist Papers."

Or just find it online here:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

But if your going to hang out at a bookstore (always a good idea) I would highly recommend:
The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788, by Jackson Turner Main

A collection of their writings can be found at:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

Interesting look at why so many people did not want a national government.

Thanks Tekla, I've been thinking of also checking out the writings of the "AntiFederalists."