Rethinking: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd law
Posted on 29. Oct, 2009 by Matthew Clark in GAYtor Bait
So, Obama just signed the hate crimes legislation that was part of the Defense spending bill. And I initially viewed this as a great step forward, because it sets a tone for tolerance in our country.
Then I got to thinking about it a little bit more. What’s at the essence of this piece of law? It sends a message that homophobic violence will be met with a more serious consequence. In doing so, we are first making the bare assumption that a greater punishment will be the deterrent of a crime. Aside from the very good points RadicalQueer brings up, this notion tends to bother me a bit. Is legislation the pinnacle of action towards deterring violence? Think of the areas with the highest amount of crime or violence? In your opinion, what are some of the root causes of crimes and violence?
I would be more inclined to think it is social conditions that generate attitudes of both hate and violence. These attitudes are better addressed in public schools, in workplaces and churches and social organizations. Legislation, in this case, seems to be a more descriptive act, representing not only the way we authenticate hate, but what ways are the best for addressing hateful attitudes.
Or am I wrong? Is the base assumption that greater justice must be exacted upon citizens of a civilized society that practice hate and violence? Still, I am not under the assumption that violence in any form is some random phenomena that can carry a justifiably higher punishment. Hate and violence, however irrational or inhumane, are part of systems of oppression that have causes for their effects. By punishing more, we’re only creating the myth that hate is not our problem, its the bigots.
What do you think? New insights? Out of my mind?
