Jackson Free Press

This morning the Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass the historic Matthew Shepard Act, expanding federal hate crimes protection to include sexual orientation. The vote was 60 for, 39 against.

I'm sure you recall the young man for whom the act is named. Matthew Shepard was only 21 when two men brutally beat him to death simply because he was gay.

Shamefully, Mississippi's two senators Cochran and Lott were among those voting against the Matthew Shepard Act. Their votes are particularly inexcusable in light of the 2004 beatings of gay men here in Jackson by two Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agents. That ugly case received national attention, attracted the Department of Justice and generally reinforced Mississippi's reputation as a state where minority rights are wantonly disregarded by our government. Cochran's and Lott's 'nay' votes did nothing to improve that reputation.

Fortunately, 60 other senators from across the country—senators of different races, genders and sexual orientations—voted in the affirmative.

Compromises must now be made between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the meantime, those opposed to the Matthew Shepard Act will likely step-up their misinformation campaign, particularly the claim that the Matthew Shepard Act restricts freedom of anti-gay expression. In reality, this legislation is not only a victory for protecting lesbians and gays, it's a great victory for the First Amendment because it targets only actions, not speech.

Once the compromise language has been agreed upon? Then we we wait to see if President Bush, as he has vowed to do, vetoes the Matthew Shepard Act.

Previous Commentsshow

Brent is there any reason why they voted the way they did? Please understand that this is a law I've heard exactly zero about until your post. Mr Shepard I've heard of.

Ironghost

Sep 27 2007

Ironghost, giving Cochran and Lott the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they voted against the Matthew Shepard Act because they sincerely believe the argument that expanding hate crimes legislation to cover gays and lesbians will be a slippery slope that leads to the erosion of the First Amendment--most notably the freedom of churches to condemn homosexuality from the pulpit and the street corner. That's the line of reasoning commonly heard from certain religious conservative interests such as Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.

Brent Cox

Sep 27 2007

I can see the fear there, after all racially motivated crimes are punished harsher than regular ones. I'm not sure it'd actually happen as they're claiming, in the end.

Ironghost

Sep 28 2007

I seriously doubt Lott and Cochran voted against it because of slippery slope. Lott and Cochran have a dismal voting record on any gay rights or gay inclusive bills - voting no for every single one that has ever been presented. Lott's disdain for gay folk is also no secret. Wasn't it several years back he said gay people were like alcoholics and kleptomaniacs? Also, the ENDA bill seems to be making progress this year. It would add sexual orientation to employment non-discrimination. Bush has vowed to veto it of course. Both of these bills have come before congress for a few years now, ultimately being defeated if not relegated to some committee that never let them see the light of vote.

LambdaRisen

Sep 29 2007

Just curious: Who is/are the Senators of "different sexual orientations" --i.e., orientations other than straight- who voted for the Act?

laughter

Sep 30 2007

That is a fair fact check, Law. To my knowledge, none of the senators who voted for the Matthew Shepard Act are openly gay or lesbian. When I blogged the above, I was mistakenly referring to Barney Frank who supported the Act, but he is an openly gay member of the House, not the Senate.

Brent Cox

Sep 30 2007

Ironghost, since we've been talking about the First Amendment implications of the Matthew Shepard Act, I want to mention this clause from the House version of the the legislation (HR 1592): 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.

Brent Cox

Sep 30 2007

I agree with the votes of Lott and Cochran. Why should there be special circumstances of "hate crimes?" Dead is dead. If my husband is killed on the street for his money his death is as real and heinous as if he were killed because of his color. Dead is dead, and heinous is heinous. WHAT is done is important, not WHY. Eloise P.

**Previously Banned Member**

Oct 2 2007

Eloise, if you consider that sentences are done for deterrence as well as for revenge, it will make more sense to you. I used to not understand this, either, and made a similar argument to yours. But I have become more educated on it. Not every crime is motivated by "hate" of a group of people where someone is targeted simply based on a general characteristic. If we do not work to deter those crimes specifically, they will grow as our history in this state shows. This will make sense to you if you apply the same logic to other crimes that have additional penalties attached such as killing police officers. In a civilized society, we don't need people killing police officers. So we add on additional punishment. In the same way, we don't need young people going around targeting black people or gays just because they're black or gay. Had we had the same more enlightened ideas in yesteryears, of course, we would have supported federal anti-lynching legislation for the same reasons -- because we want to live in a civilized society. Of course, Lott and Cochran are too cavemen to even make a civilized gesture of apologizing for the Senate not doing more to stop the epidemic of lynching, so we have a ways to go. But people with attitudes like that, thankfully, are becoming more the exception. And it's ludicrous to say the "why" of any crime isn't important. Simply absurd. Well, at least if you care about stopping crime in the future, that is.

DonnaLadd

Oct 2 2007

and actually, the "why" is very important when it comes to the law... it's called "motive." and that can make a very big difference in what kind of sentence the murderer gets.

music chick

Oct 2 2007

Also, consider that we wouldn't treat terrorists any differently than someone who shot someone in a heated argument if we didn't have these kinds of distinctions. And in effect, the point of hate-crime legislation is to deter terrorism in our midst, to cut it off before it takes hold and grows (again, as it did in our past right here in the state).

DonnaLadd

Oct 2 2007

Amazing all the gay rights stuff going on in Congress in the past week or so. Must be election season and Democrats trying to pass something, anything to get those votes. What they did with the Employment Non Discrimation Act (ENDA) yesterday and today is shameful, offering up an alternative version that excluded transgender people and was full of loopholes to allow discrimination anyway, and trying to get it passed quickly.

LambdaRisen

Oct 2 2007

If we really want to deter the majority of crimes, then why choose harsher penalties for "hate crimes," which constitute a miniscule number? If deterrence is the outcome we're looking for, then make heinous crimes against ANYONE crimes with extremely long and heinous sentences. The majority of violent crimes are committed by 1. folks who know each other 2. young black men killing each other. 3. Folks involved with drugs and alcohol. Let's give these folks long sentences and deter the huge majority of violent crimes, if that is really the outcome we're seeking, which we're not. We're seeking political correctness. What's good for the goose and gay person is good enough for all us ganders. EP

**Previously Banned Member**

Oct 2 2007

Stop it with the political correctness crap. That phrase means nothing these days when the most "politically correct" thing one can say is what you just typed. Your post doesn't even make sense. You seem to be asking us to give, for instance, "young black men killing each other" "long sentences" because, presumably, by deterring the crimes committed by the most people, "young black men," then the problem will lessen. Now, explain to me how such a target would be different than, say, targeting hate crimes before they, again, become an epidemic? You're arguing for targeting -- you just want the people you fear targeted, it seems from your post. Or, am I missing what the "majority" has to do with this conversation? And I guess someone so afraid of asking "why?" wouldn't want us to explore "why" so many crimes are committed by "young black men," right? Would that be too "politically correct" for you? I'm sure you know that "extremely long sentences" do not actually deter most of the most serious crimes; neither does the death penalty. The point with "hate crimes," as I understand it, is to have society stand up against potential terrorists in our midst, which tends to be homegrown in places including the suburbs and rural areas, and send the message that crimes based on hate and fear of "the other" cannot and will not be tolerated in our midst. In other words, it's not necessarily done to deter someone who is already a hardened killer; it is to keep young people from being hardened killers in the first place because they're not taught this hate crap in the home because the culture tells them it's not OK to go hand a gay man on a fence post or drag a black man behind their car until his head comes off. You know, like the stuff that used to happen all the time in our state while our society turned its head and blamed the victims for stirrin' up trouble, or whatever. If we're serious about not going back, we've got to take steps to show that ... to each other, more than anything. Also the very same argument you're making is the reason given for southern legislators not supporting federal anti-lynching legislation. Well, there are already laws on the books for those crimes, they croaked. Yeah, right.

DonnaLadd

Oct 2 2007

One of the most compelling arguments for me is that hate crimes legislation allows federal authorities to intervene when local authorities are unable or unwilling to prosecute. This is particularly important in the south where local authorities may be unwilling to prosecute because of anti-minority bias.

Brent Cox

Oct 2 2007

Agreed, Brent. Federal intervention when locals won't (or can't) act has always been an imperative need here, whether during lynching days, Jim Crow, gay-bashing times or now during the Melton administration. You said it very well.

DonnaLadd

Oct 2 2007

I don't want drug addicts, young black men, or others "targeted." I want the same penalties for all, including those covered by "hate crimes," and I want them tougher, much tougher, to deter crime. EP

**Previously Banned Member**

Oct 3 2007

Eloise, Longer, tougher penalties do NOT deter most crimes--especially those committed in the heat of the moment. Not even the death penalty does that, and there are numerous studies that prove the point. The objective of classifying some crimes as "hate" crimes is to stop people in their tracks when they actually have an opportunity to give some thought to it. Like when a bunch of kids decide it would be "fun" to torture and/or kill another human being expressly because of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc., which may not have anything to do with the specific victim. The point is to raise awareness of the fact that such pre-meditation cannot be tolerated by a civilized people. Saying that all crimes where someone ends up dead should have the same penalty is simply ludicrous. Motive matters, as do extenuating circumstances. That's why there are "special circumstances" in the laws. Adding rape to homicide, for example, equals a death penalty case. Adding the element of bigotry and blind, ignorant hatred to a crime SHOULD be taken into account when the punishment is meted out. If you break my window with an errant softball, I'd be OK with your cleaning up and paying for the damage. If you break my window with a rock wrapped in a death-threat I'd want you locked up. There are degrees of violence that must be accounted for in the law.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 3 2007

Ronni; If stiffer penalties for "hate crimes" will stop kids in their tracks from going after a boy of another color, then stiffer penalties will stop kids in their tracks from attacking another gang member, or an old woman of another color.

**Previously Banned Member**

Oct 8 2007

No, Eloise, you're not comprehending the full picture. The problem with "hate crimes" historically in this country is that they are often kids acting out on the prejudices that society pushes. The societal message is that these groups are, somehow, less better than the dominant cultures in society. We've seen right here in our own state. Society must come together against crimes based on the bigotry that the dominant culture has promoted in order to send the message that they are not crimes committed on behalf of a society that looks the other way because many of the loudest people believe homosexuality is a sin, or that black people are inferior to whites. Inevitably, there will be people such as yourself who don't get it—but that is exactly why these kinds of laws are so important.

DonnaLadd

Oct 9 2007

The problem with "street crimes" historically in this country is that they are often kids acting out on the prejudices that their local society pushes (such as it's cool to be a thug and kill folks for no reason whatsoever). We've seen this right here in our own state. Society must come together against crime based on the bigotry that the dominant culture of these thugs has promoted in order to send the message that they are political crimes committed by Fanon's aliented "Wretched of the Earth." Inevitably, there will be people such as yourself who don't get it--but it's exactly why all crimes of bodily harm committed on innocents should be strengthened to meet or exceed those of other "hate" crimes. Condescension is a two-way street. EP

**Previously Banned Member**

Oct 10 2007

Eloise, when you are chased down the street by a truckload of bat-wielding teens yelling faggot, it will be hard to truly comprehend the vast difference between a domestic dispute, a robbery, and a hate-crime. Try being at a club and THE POLICE dropping tear gas throughout the club for fun. It will be hard to empathize if you've never been chased at speeds reaching 100mph down State St and on I-55S because of a rainbow flag on a car and then ever-so-kindly forced into the median. You'll probably have a hard time empathizing until you've had a group of skin heads chase you through the French Quarter yelling "die fag" until it happens to someone you know or love. Those are real situations. They happened to me. Further, all happened in Jackson (except the Quarter incident). All happened because these young men based their actions on what they perceived me to be (I don't come across as a stereotypical gay man) and responded with a hateful and near deadly action. They weren't looking to take my wallet. They weren't looking to rob my house. I had never met them before... There was no "past" with them. They simply wanted to hurt a "fag." I'll presume you don't always feel as though you could be mugged, shot, raped, or stabbed. I'll also presume you don't feel like every straight man that passes you wants to beat you because you're a woman. Further, I'll presume you actually feel some safety even in Frank Melton's Jackson. Well, for many minorities (especially gays and lesbians), a true sense of safety in our own community. Until our representatives take a stand and severely penalize intentional and hateful actions, they are giving these malicious people an avenue of escape and an opportunity to force entire communities into a place of fear. See, hate crimes are more about the terrorism they create than the few people that become victims of them. It's the terror and fear that hate crimes instill not only in the targeted community but the community at large.

kaust

Oct 10 2007