As the news breaks about Prosecutor Cal Rerucha’s decision to seek the death penalty for Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson for their alleged roles in the heinous murder of Matthew Shepard, the question is raised once again concerning the need for hate crimes legislation.
First, let’s review the Shepard case and what makes it such a prominent figurehead in the battle to enact hate crimes legislation in Wyoming. Matthew was an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming in Laramie who became the victim of a brutal beating and murder. The alleged perpetrators of this horrible crime lured Matthew into their vehicle with hints that they too, were gay. Once he was inside the vehicle, these would be friends suddenly became his captors. They drove him to a remote area, robbed him, stripped him of his clothes, and beat him with the butt of a .357 revolver. And beat him. And beat him. Then they left his scarred broken body there to die. But he didn’t, not yet anyway.
His murderers, alleged that is, were arrested and arraigned almost immediately after he was found hanging off the barbed wire fence. They were brought up on charges of kidnapping, aggravated robbery and attempted murder. After being found, Matthew managed to live another five days before succumbing to his injuries and finally passing away on October 12. The charges levied against his alleged tormenters were promptly upgraded to first-degree murder.
In the following days, the news of his tragic death were broadcast across the country. Cries for justice were loud and swift. The gay community chose to make Matthew a symbol for their cause, and the hate crimes lobbyists chose to make him a martyr for theirs. President Clinton voiced his outrage at such a violent act, and Governor Geringer was besieged with requests to enact hate crimes legislation in the Equality State. All of a sudden, Wyoming itself was on trial. Why? Because Wyoming doesn’t treat a crime committed out of hate differently than any other type of crime.
Now let’s discuss what a hate crime is, as it would be defined by law. A hate crime is any violent act that is committed against a victim who is targeted because of his or her race, nationality, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes legislation would impose stiffer penalties on crimes that fall under these requirements. The reasoning? By imposing these greater penalties, hate crimes legislation would deter these particular types of crimes. Furthermore, it would reduce the hate in the world and humanity would become more humane. We would all sleep better knowing that it is now illegal for the guy down the street to hate me because I’m Mormon and he’s a Catholic. All of our hates would be legislated away with the stroke of a pen, and safety and happiness would abound!
Am I starting to sound cynical? I am. Do I sound like I don’t buy it? I don’t. Read these two short scenarios and I’ll get back to you later:
Your name is Jon, Jon Smith. You’re a young Jewish man who lives with his family in Suburban, USA. After a long day at work, you’ve finally made it home. You pull in the driveway, turn off your car, lock it up, and start the 20 foot walk up the cement path to your porch. You reach the door, fumbling for your keys, and after a moment, clumsily make your way into the house. As you turn on the living room light, you see the unthinkable. Your two daughters are lying in crimson pools, sprawled out in the space between the couch and the hallway to the kitchen. You’re youngest is still holding the Raggedy Ann doll that you had just given her for her birthday, only now it is soaked in sticky blood. As you slowly regain your senses, you hear the unmistakable “Click!” of a revolvers hammer being pulled back into firing position. You look up to see a young man, early twenties at the most. He’s wearing ratted blue jeans, a black sweater, and white Payless tennis shoes. You notice splatters of dark crimson splashed on his shoes, pants, and hands. In the dull glow of the corner light, you see that he has a small swastika tattooed on his lower left arm just above the wrist, and on his right forearm, barely visible, is an SS. “You Friggin’ Kike!” he hisses, pure hatred in his voice. “You God Damned Jews should all rot! I already offed your brats, now it’s your turn!” You’re able to say one short little prayer, telling your daughters that you’ll be with them soon, as this hateful young man puts the gun to your forehead, pulls the trigger, and separates your mind from your body. Literally.
Your name is Jon, Jon Smith. You’re a young man who lives with his family in Suburban, USA. After a long day at work, you’ve finally made it home. You pull in the driveway, turn off your car, lock it up, and start the 20 foot walk up the cement path to your porch. You reach the door, fumbling for your keys, and after a moment, clumsily make your way into the house. As you turn on the living room light, you see the unthinkable. Your two daughters are lying in crimson pools, sprawled out in the space between the couch and the hallway to the kitchen. You’re youngest is still holding the Raggedy Ann doll that you had just given her for her birthday, only now it is soaked in sticky blood. As you slowly regain your senses, you hear the unmistakable “Click!” of a revolvers hammer being pulled back into firing position. You look up to see a young man, early twenties at the most. He’s wearing ratted blue jeans, a black sweater, and white Payless tennis shoes. You notice splatters of dark crimson splashed on his shoes, pants, and hands. In the dull glow of the corner light, you see that he is holding a small cloth sack, hanging open, and in it you can barely discern the cash and jewelry obviously stolen from the dresser in your bedroom. “Dammit! No one was supposed to be home.” He says, frustration edging through in his voice. “Sorry about the brats man, but I can’t leave any witnesses.” You’re able to say one short little prayer, telling your daughters that you’ll be with them soon, as the young man puts the gun to your forehead, pulls the trigger, and separates your mind from your body. Literally.
Alright, it’s quiz time. Should a man who kills out of hatred be punished more than a man who kills to steal? Which of the above deserves the worst? Who should get life in prison, and who should get life in prison plus fifteen? The young man who hated you, or the young man who just wanted to rob you. Would a hate crime law have prevented the first crime? Would it have provided justice in the second? No, and no.
More importantly, would it have prevented the death of Matthew Shepard? Sadly, no.
The fact is, someone who commits a violent act doesn’t stop and think, “Now am I doing this out of hatred because my victim is black? Because if I am, I better stop now because I’ll get a longer sentence!” Violence is violence, pure and simple and someone who crosses that line is already beyond this type of reasoning. It should be the duty of the jury to decide whether or not the suspect committed the crime. When a guilty verdict is reached, punishment must be swift and fitting. Its severity should be based on the actions of the perpetrator, and not the underlying reason for those actions. In the Equality state, as it should be in the rest of our country, robbery is robbery, assault is assault, and murder is murder. Punish accordingly and let the sociologists and psychologists figure out “why”.
Later for now.
-Wisdom
