Forum focuses on hate crimes

Yesterday's B-GLAD event at the Law School examined the pros and cons of hate crimes legislation. In 1998, a black man was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas. The very same year, Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming, was murdered after allegedly hitting on two heterosexual men. Hate crimes legislation, sponsored by such groups as the Human Rights Campaign and the Anti-Defamation League, is meant to deter such vicious acts of aggression. And while most Americans would never claim that hate crimes are not morally offensive, some, such as Penn Law Professors Heidi Hurd and Stephen Morse, feel that hate crimes laws go against the ideological framework of liberal political thinking. Hurd and Morse were two members of a panel of four at yesterday's B-GLAD event, "Hate Crimes Law: Defending Communities or Policy Thought?" They joined Keven Layton of the HRC and Andrew Torsy of the ADL, who spoke in favor of hate crimes legislation, such as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The four discussed the issues surrounding hate crimes laws before an audience of about 125 people, most of whom were Law students, at the Law School yesterday. The debate was moderated by Law Professor David Rudovsky. Torsy, a civil rights counsel for the ADL, outlined why his organization feels that hate crimes laws are necessary. "When you have harm, criminal law all the time separates it on a spectrum," he said. He argued that because hate crimes are worse than the crimes themselves, they require a greater penalty under the law. Layton, the HRC's deputy legal director, discussed the nature of federal hate crime laws. Federal laws mandate that the FBI collect statistics regarding hate crimes. They also offer penalty enhancements for hate crimes on federal property. While some include protection based on gender and disability, not all federal hate crimes laws protect all groups. The HCPA "would amend federal law to include protection [based on] gender, disability or sexual orientation," Layton said. Hurd and Morse questioned the very premise of hate crimes legislation. Hurd, who teaches criminal law, said hate crime laws punish a perpetrator for what he cannot control. "The short of it is that enhancing penalties ultimately punishes defendants for bad emotions," she said. Hurd then issued an attack directed against the proponents of the HCPA. "Those of you who support hate crimes laws are not political liberals, but political perfectionists," she said. In agreement with Hurd's summation, Morse, an expert in criminal law, said liberal ideology completely opposes current hate crimes laws. Political liberals, instead of narrowly defining criminal acts, "would like to limit extensive criminal law," he said. "We want our criminal law to be as general as possible, and we would like fewer people in prison," Morse added. Hate crimes laws, he contended, go against all of these goals. After a lengthy question-and-answer session, most in attendance joined the panelists for a reception. First-year Law student Michelle Seldin said she would have liked to have seen an academic on the panel in favor of the HCPA. "I'm Jewish and a lesbian, and feel particularly strong about the necessary strong protection from hate crimes laws," Seldin said. First-year Law students Susanne Salkind and Richard Sandman, who organized the event, felt that the academic and professional mix of the panel added to the discussion. "I think our purpose was to have a broader discussion about hate crimes. It helped fill out the conversation," Salkind said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.