Opponents of Hate Crimes Bill Add Amendments That Make It More Contentious

Yesterday the U.S. Senate passed four amendments to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Enforcement Act that it adopted last week as part of the Defense Authorization Act. (See prior posting). Three of the amendments (full text) were introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions and, according to the Advocate, are seen by the Human Rights Campaign as "poison pills" designed to defeat the entire hate crimes bill. The Hill also reports on the amendments which were described by HRC Back Story as follows:

The first Sessions Amendment would allow the death penalty to be applied in hate crimes cases under some circumstances. This Amendment is unnecessary and is a poison pill designed to kill the bill. The Amendment is being offered by and supported by Senators who oppose the Matthew Shepard Act. It’s ironic that the very Senators who have falsely argued that this bill would put clergy in jail because of their beliefs think that those same clergy should be subject to the death penalty.

The second Sessions Amendment would place an additional burden on the Justice Department to revise its long established guidelines for hate crimes cases. This Amendment is unnecessary. The Department already contains well-established, clear and precise guidelines to govern cases involving bias-motivated violence that work well.

Finally, the third Sessions Amendment would provide additional penalties for crimes involving service members or their families. This Amendment is unnecessary. Existing statutes already provide special penalties on attacks against members of the Armed Services and veterans. In addition, the vague language of the Amendment is problematic. The Amendment provides for additional penalties for injuring the property of a serviceman or immediate family member. The scope of "family member" or what constitutes an "injury" to their property is unclear.

In response to the addition of the death penalty language, the Senate then passed a Democratic-sponsored amendment that would limit hate crime prosecutions until a state's attorney general has created standards for applying capital punishment. The death penalty amendment, offered by Sen. Sessions, was approved by unanimous consent despite a letter (full text) from 50 civil rights and religious groups opposing the amendment.

Meanwhile, according to yesterday's Washington Blade, the ACLU has issued a statement pressing for the House, rather than the Senate, version of the hate crimes bill. The House bill, H.R. 1913, was passed by the House in April. (See prior posting.) Concerned about freedom of speech and association, the ACLU favors language in the House bill that prohibits introducing substantive evidence of expression or association at trial unless it specifically relates to the offense charged. The House language though would not change evidentiary rules on the impeachment of witnesses. Chris Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel, said that "an otherwise unremarkable violent crime" should not become a federal offense because the defendant viewed the wrong web site, belonged to a group espousing bigotry or subscribed to a magazine that promotes discriminatory views.