anitram said:
Who is to say there is a correlation between burning crosses and hate crime legislation? Is it not more logical that this is a reflection of changing social values, which were compelled by globalization, integration and differing views of the younger generation rather than it being a reflection of hate crimes legislation?
i say so. so does the DC gov't. Perhaps the decrease could be a reflection of society's values, but discrimination continues to plague our society today. i'm personally happy that DC banned burning crosses and swastikas. it really really hurts to see stuff like that happen in your own town. hate crime legislation doesn't just increase the penalty basted on the criminal's motivation, it also bans certain acts. without a hate crime policy, what more would the perpetrator be charged, besides destruction of property or whatever it is called, if that person had burned a cross or a swastika in somebody's yard??
I would boldly predict that if you struck down every piece of legislation in every state, and prosecuted hate crimes under regular criminal code provisions, nothing would change in the rates of hate crimes. Do you honestly believe that this legislation is imperative to prevent burning crosses? That if it was struck down tomorrow, suddenly there would be a rash of such activities?
This legislation isn't strictly about cross burning. No, the crimes haven't stopped, and to be honest with you, there are probably loads of activity that goes unreported. However, to me it says a lot when local governments have such laws. What it does is shows that some governments take domestic terrorism very seriously. With all that our federal gov't is doing about terrorism on a global scale (heh, but the flaws of that are meant for other threads), to me, it is comforting to see that the local governments are doing something about the terrorism going on here and by our own citizens. These hate crime policies exist because the local govts believe it is a threat to the community when somebody is attacked or threatened because of race, religion, sex, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin. With all those groups included, and with an increase in sexual orientation motivated crimes, I really don't see why it is such a problem to add sexual orientation to these policies.
Also, loads of groups have sprung up since hate crime legislation was inacted to provide more support for victims, and even the perpetrators. Hate crimes policies have done more than increase punishment, they have played a role in increasing tolerance and awareness.
You may feel there is no need for this legislation, and I respect that. However I'm just going to agree to disagree with you. I believe that in cases such as Andrew's, hate crime legislation is necessary, and it needs to be altered to include sexual orientation.