“One thing you have to keep in mind with the hate-crimes statute is that it is drafted extremely broadly.”
by Bethany Stotts
With the http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4358 legislation has intensified. Some scholars worry that such proposals use dangerously vague language.
“One thing you have to keep in mind with the hate-crimes statute is that it is drafted extremely broadly. You hear it referred to as a ‘hate crime’ statute—it is therefore natural to believe it must require hatred. It does not,” argued Professor Gail Heriot. She believes that H.R. 1592 masks lawmakers’ long-standing desire to http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4583 expand hate crimes to include rape and other violent acts.
In its current form, prosecutors need only prove that a crime was committed “because of” demographic factors, and need not establish malice, argue opponents. The bill, also known as the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,” was passed by the House last May and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This was not simply sloppy draftsmanship. The language was chosen deliberately,” argued Heriot. The University of San Diego law professor described traveling to Washington, D.C. in the 1990’s to complain about similarly vague language. She said,
“A decade ago I had an opportunity when I was working on the Hill to discuss this with representatives of the Clinton Administration from the Justice Department and I innocently thought that this was drafted this way simply because no one was thinking. And I said ‘Hey, what about this rape situation? Isn’t that going to mean that every rape, the person acted because of the gender of the victim?’ …They absolutely refused to say that the statute would not cover all rapes. That was something that they definitely wanted to hold as a possibility.”
Louisiana State University Professor John Baker, Jr. concurred with Heriot’s assessment.
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2336