| |
e-ACTIVIST ALERT
|
|
| Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 |
|
|
|
After you have read the following sample letter, you may send it to your Representatives along with any additional comments that you add. To send the letter below as an email, copy/paste the sample text into your Senators' or Representatives' contact form. Use the form at the bottom of this page to find your Representative.
|
|
|
On April 2, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and 42 cosponsors introduced H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in the House and the legislation was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. As we write, the bill has 120 cosponsors and on April 27, it was placed on the Union Calendar (All legislation dealing with raising, authorizing, or spending money is assigned to this calendar). A vote could occur in the full House as early as Wednesday, April 29.
While the stated objective of H.R. 1913 is “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes,” this legislation, if passed, would open the door to a wide variety of abuses. Among the “trouble spots” with this proposed legislation:
• “State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.”
The legislation attempts to categorize crime according to the “motivations” of the perpetrator. As a writer in The New American magazine once noted:
“Hate crimes legislation creates a new body of laws based on the underlying motivations behind criminal acts. When penalties are enhanced, then the thoughts themselves are criminalized. This approach is essentially totalitarian, no matter how repugnant the motivating beliefs, since it requires the state to prove what is in the mind of a defendant and (in the case of enhanced penalties) to punish his beliefs.”
Furthermore, when the bill proposes that local law enforcement authorities be given federal assistance, the end result will be federal control over all law enforcement.
• “Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.”
The reason federal law is supposedly inadequate is because crimes that would most likely be committed out of hate, such as assault, battery, and murder, are already being prosecuted by state and local government. Federalizing such crimes (even by definition) creates a redundant layer of law enforcement that can only lead to the aforementioned federal control of all law enforcement.
• “Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.”
Again, the legislation attempts to ascertain and criminalize motivations, coming dangerously close to creating a category of “thought crimes” as depicted by George Orwell in 1984. And the establishment of federal jurisdiction over crimes traditionally prosecuted at the state level is an infringement upon states’ rights.
• “The term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.”
Such language raises the potential for federal interference of law enforcement matters into the tiniest hamlets of America. Even a fight between neighbors of different ethnic or philosophical persuasions might be labeled as “a hate crime.”
• “The Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that — (A) constitutes a crime of violence; (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim….”
Not content to cite “sexual orientation,” the legislation includes “gender identity,” meaning that, theoretically, a bouncer who exerted an indiscreet amount of physical force in ejecting a disorderly cross dresser from a nightclub might be charged with “a hate crime.”
While H.R. 1913’s original sponsor, John Conyers, attempted to reassure the reluctant that “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way,” another cosponsor, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) signaled her intention that the legislation would apply not only to attacks with sticks and stones, but also with words: “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.”
Attempting to ascertain an assailment’s motivations is a difficult assignment, and sure to create more problems than it solves. Our state and local authorities have protected their citizens against violent crime since our nation’s founding. All violent crime is hateful. Motivations are irrelevant. There is no need to complicate the prosecution of crime any further, or to invite federal agents to interfere in local matters.
Scroll down to take action by sending a letter or an email to your representative and senators in Congress, telling them to oppose passage of H.R. 1913 in both Houses of Congress.
Be sure to personalize the pre-written letter to ensure the maximum impact. You are free to edit the pre-written sample letter.
|
|
|
Please oppose H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in the House and the Senate.
H.R. 1913 would result in federal control over all law enforcement. It attempts to categorize crime according to the “motivations” of the perpetrator, a next-to-impossible task.
While this bill states that “existing Federal law is inadequate to address [a crime of violence motivated by prejudice],” crimes that would most likely be committed out of hate, such as assault, battery, and murder, are already being prosecuted by state and local government. Federalizing such crimes (even by definition) creates a redundant layer of law enforcement that can only lead to the aforementioned federal control of all law enforcement.
Attempting to ascertain an assailant’s motivations is a difficult assignment, and sure to create more problems than it solves. Our state and local authorities have protected their citizens against violent crime since our nation’s founding. All violent crime is hateful. Motivations are irrelevant. There is no need to complicate the prosecution of crime any further, or to invite federal agents to interfere in local matters.
|
