Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Wednesday, February 28, 2001‘Hate crime’ legislation
should be thrown outThe issue: The state Senate Judiciary Committee has passed a "hate crime" bill.
THE Legislature should resist pressure to pass a "hate crime" bill that has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is an example of misguided political correctness that attempts to distinguish between motivations for crimes rather than simply punish the perpetrators for the acts they commit.
The bill would permit extended sentences for crimes that are motivated by the victims' race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability. These are known as hate crimes. It would apply only to felonies.
There is no doubt that heinous acts are committed that can be classified as hate crimes. But murders, rapes and lesser assaults are already crimes. The victims suffer regardless of the motivation of the assailant.
Justice is not served by meting out harsher sentences based not on the acts committed but the motivation behind them.
At a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the highly publicized murders of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual, and James Byrd, a black, were cited in support of the hate-crimes bill. But the killers of Shepard were sentenced to life imprisonment and those of Byrd to death.
No additional "hate crime" penalty was necessary to administer justice in these cases. Our courts should be blind to distinctions of race, religion, sexual orientation and the other categories proposed in this bill.
Public Defender Jack Tonaki warned that the measure would unfairly punish those who "in the heat of the moment" utter slurs that do not actually constitute motivation. Sen. Sam Slom, lone dissenter on the committee, warned that the bill could violate First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment protects even bigoted and hate-filled speech. Yet such protected expression is commonly the source of evidence used to support a finding of "hate crime." Such legislation is a way to circumvent that constitutional protection for the sake of political correctness, to exact a harsher punishment because of the offender's beliefs.
To oppose this bill is not to condone crimes against blacks, homosexuals or members of any other category. Rather, it is to oppose selective administration of justice based not on the actual crimes committed but the identity of the victims and in disregard of freedom of speech.
Compromise will be
needed on tax cuts
AGAINST the background of a faltering economy, President Bush renewed his election campaign pitch for a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years in his first address to Congress. The newly worrisome economic climate makes a tax cut more appealing than it was during the campaign, and it is almost certain that Congress will act.
The president made an eloquent case for the tax cut after reviewing his other program goals, particularly expansion of federal aid to education. The point he emphasized -- that the money belongs to the people, not the government, and what the government doesn't need should be refunded -- is both true and persuasive, although it is hardly the whole story.
But with the Republicans clinging precariously to razor-thin majorities in both houses, and with a president whose election victory is widely questioned, it is highly improbable that Bush will get all he is asking for. Congress is so narrowly divided that compromise is inevitable if agreement is to be reached.
And Bush probably shouldn't get all he asked for. As the Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt, noted in their responses to the president's address, the projected 10-year federal budget surplus is little more than an educated guess and shouldn't be taken seriously.
A prolonged economic downturn would soon result in a sharply revised projection -- as would uncontrolled spending. And Congress has been on a spending binge, far exceeding its expenditure ceilings.
Even if the projected surplus is accepted, the Democrats contended, Bush's numbers simply don't add up. And it does appear that the rosy fiscal picture he painted is too good to be true.
In view of the urgent need to shore up Social Security and expand Medicare -- among other demands on the federal government's resources -- a modest tax cut would make more sense.
Moreover, Bush's plan gives too much to upper-income people, who, although they pay the bulk of the income tax, hardly need such a generous break. The plan probably has more to do with pleasing the wealthy contributors to the Bush presidential campaign than strengthening the economy.
The president has gotten off to a good start by reaching out to the Democrats and emphasizing the need for civility and cooperation -- qualities sorely lacking in the relations between the White House and Congress in the previous administration.
He comes across as likable if not particularly knowledgeable. And he benefits by the contrast with the scandalous behavior of Bill Clinton.
But Bush embarks on his presidency with no mandate for change. To get his program enacted, he has a major selling job to do. Last night's performance was a good start, but a lot of hard politicking lies ahead.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
