In Excelsis Deo
A gay student is beaten to death (1), and CJ wants to take a stand in favor of passing federal hate crimes legislation (2). Toby learns of the death of a homeless veteran (3) who was wearing a coat he had donated to goodwill, and then arranges a military burial at Arlington National Cemetery (4).
(back to top)
Hate crimes: incidence (last updated August 24, 2003) (back to top)
This case refers quite clearly to Matthew Shepard, the gay, 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was beaten to death in October 1998. Shepard's death galvanized public attention to anti-gay hate crimes. In November 1998, Shepard's killer was convicted and then sentenced to two life sentences after Shepard's parents helped broker a deal in the name of mercy to avoid a death sentence.
Hate-crime statistics reported to the FBI from 1996 to 2001 show that hate crimes are perpetrated most often against blacks, homosexuals and Jews, but also show that the number of such crimes against Muslims and against people based on their non-Hispanic ethnicity or national origin increased dramatically from 2000 to 2001, probably because of reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. As reported by the FBI, the overall number of hate crimes increased 20 percent from 2000 to 2001 largely based on such crimes directed against Muslims and based on victims' non-Hispanic ethnicity or national origin. Specific incidents such as the October 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard and the 2001 hate crimes towards Muslims have drawn national attention, but it is still up for debate whether hate-crimes are in fact becoming more common or whether they are simply better reported now. Those who say that the incidence of hate-crimes has risen in recent years may not be taking into account a long-term view of history or making proper comparisons with earlier eras. The following chart reflects FBI statistics from 1996 to 2001, which includes data from law-enforcement agencies covering roughly 85 percent of the nation; reports from earlier years had considerably fewer agencies reporting and are thus less useful for comparison. For purposes of such data collection, hate crimes are defined by federal law as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity."
In 2000, with agencies covering 84.2 percent of the nation reporting, there were 8,603 bias-motivated incidents involving 9,430 separate offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 known distinguishable offenders. Of these, most were based on race (53.8 percent), followed by religion (18.3 percent), sexual orientation (16.1%), ethnicity/national origin (11.3 percent), and a small few against the disabled or based on multiple biases. Racially-motivated hate crimes in 2000 were mostly anti-Black (66%), followed by anti-white (20%) and anti-Asian (6%); Hispanics are not included here but under the anti-ethnicity category. Religion-based hate crimes were mostly against Jews (75%); crimes against Muslims represented 2% of such religion-based hate crimes. Sexual-orientation hate crimes were directed mostly towards male homosexuals (69%) and then against lesbians (14%), with another 14% classified simply as against homosexuals without differentiation between males and females; 2 percent were against heterosexuals. Most offenses were against persons (65%) and usually involved intimidation (35 percent of all hate-crime offenses) or some kind of non-fatal assault; aggravated assaults were less common, and murders and non-negligent manslaughters were rare. Of the offenses not directed against people, most involved vandalism (29 percent of all hate crimes).
Sources: The FBI's annual hate-crime reports are available on-line here. Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforcement, Valerie Jenness and Ryken Grattet (Russell Sage Foundation, 2001). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes : Criminal Law & Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hate Crimes : Federal and State Hate-Crime Legislation (last updated January 18, 2003) (back to top)
With growing awareness of violence directed against members of non-majority groups, many states have enacted a wide variety of hate-crime legislation that often involve the creation of new crimes or sentence enhancement. At the federal level, civil-rights statutes from the post-Civil War era and from the 1960s occasionally have been used to prosecute perpetrators of certain kinds of hate crimes, but debate continues as to whether broader measures should be enacted and how to tailor such laws without penalizing the offender's mere beliefs or violating free-speech or federalism concerns. In recent years, public debate has focused on whether federal civil-rights laws should be amended to cover crimes directed against people because of their sexual orientation. Such measures have been introduced in the House and Senate, but have never become law. For example, the Senate voted 57-42 in June 2000 to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act - later renamed the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2000 - as an amendment to a defense authorization bill; the House later supported a parallel measure 232-192. However, on October 5, 2000, Republicans stripped the measure from the bill as the houses negotiated the final working of the authorization bill. Hate-Crimes Legislation in the StatesMore than 20 states have passed hate-crimes legislation. These laws take many different forms; some criminalize acts such as intimidation or cross-burning, and some enhance the sentences for crimes that are specifically directed at someone because of a particular status category such as race or sexual orientation. New York's hate-crime laws, for example, break what is popularly considered a hate-crime down into two crimes. First, there is the underlying crime itself, be it assault, rape, or other crimes. Second, there is the hate crime itself, which New York defines in Penal Law 485.05 as the intentional selection of a victim of based on a belief or perception regarding the "race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct." A person who commits a hate crime will generally receive a higher sentence for the underlying crime. Additionally, New York has created the crime of aggravated harassment, Penal Law 240.30, which is when someone "strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct." But even if a state does not have a hate-crimes measure, a state can still prosecute offenders to a serious degree. For example, those who killed Matthew Shepard in Wyoming and those who killed James J. Byrd Jr. in Texas were all prosecuted and convicted under standard criminal laws. Hate-Crimes Legislation at the Federal LevelThe federal government does have the power to prosecute what are now considered hate-crimes based on laws passed after the Civil War and because of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but this power only covers some of the possible categories generally considered targeted by hate crimes and is limited by federalism concerns. Federal prosecutors have generally used such laws to prosecute crimes when local officials have failed or are unable to do so. Currently, the federal government can prosecute those who commit certain kinds of hate-crimes based on race, color, religion, or national origin, but not hate-crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, or disability status. Recent legislative and political efforts have focused on expanding the coverage of existing civil-rights laws to include such categories. The Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994 and did expand 245's reach towards gender, but the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1999, holding that Congress did not have the power to pass such a law. Beyond the status categories covered by such laws, these laws require some kind of "nexus" in order to justify federal jurisdiction (this is what the Violence Against Women Act lacked). A relevant 1870 law limits federal prosecutions to those committed "under color of law," meaning those who act with the official or unofficial approval of government officials. A 1968 law limits federal prosecutions to those that involve the deprivation of one's federal civil rights or the ability to enjoy public places. Once this nexus can be found, prosecutors can use these civil-rights laws to bring criminal charges in federal court and to get around double-jeopardy. Under the U.S. Constitution, a person can be prosecuted for a crime only once by each government that can prosecute the case. And because most criminal law is conducted by each state, that usually means one shot and that's it. But federal hate-crime laws give the federal government its own chance to prosecute, effectively making federal prosecutors the back-up squad in case the state prosecutors either do not prosecute or fail to get a conviction. Accordingly, federal prosecutors were able to bring charges against the local Mississippi police who killed three civil-rights workers in 1965 and the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King in March 1991. In addition, the federal Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act does enhance sentences for hate crimes committed against a wide group of statuses, but only when these crimes are committed on federal land. First Amendment and Other ConcernsDebate continues not only over what status categories should be covered by hate-crimes laws, but over how to write and apply such laws without violating other civil rights. These concerns express themselves in different ways.The Supreme Court, for example, has struck down laws that were too specific; in 1992 the United States Supreme Court struck declared unconstitutional a local ordinance in Minnesota that criminalized cross-burning because it did not cover similarly hostile acts that were not based on race or other specific categories. Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union has supported expanding the coverage of federal civil-rights laws to sexual orientation and gender, but has simultaneously urged restrictions on the kinds of evidence that can be used at trial. In 1999, the ACLU warned that prosecutors have at times used evidence showing nothing more than that the defendant had racist views; the ACLU thus recommended that the Senate include an evidentiary provision that would prevent "evidence proving the defendant's mere abstract beliefs" or "evidence of the defendant's mere membership in an organization" from use at trial. This way, a prosecutor could not get someone convicted simply because he had biases against minorities. An Example of How Hate Crime Legislation Works and FailsThe use and possible misuse of federal civil-rights laws in alleged hate-crime situations can be seen in perhaps the most infamous incident of a crime involving an Asian-American victim. In 1982, Chinese-American Vincent Chin was killed by two white men who reportedly mistook him for a Japanese person and who reportedly blamed the Japanese for the economic woes then plaguing the Detroit area. Chin had encountered Ronald Ebens and Ebens' stepson Michael Nitz at a strip-club that Chin had attended for his pre-wedding bachelor's party; a fight ensued, and Ebens and Nitz ultimately chased Chin for blocks until Ebens beat Chin to death with a baseball bat. Admitting that he had killed Chin but claiming that he had been drunk and was provoked, Ebens pled guilty in state court to manslaughter and was given probation and a $3,720 fine. With widespread public outrage at the low sentence and with state prosecutors barred from taking further action because of double-jeopardy provisions, federal prosecutors then indicted Ebens and his stepson Michael Nitz for violating 18 USC 245(b)(2)(F), a 1968 law that involved depriving someone of their right to enjoy a public place of accommodation. At trial in federal court, Ebens was convicted and Nitz acquitted, but Ebens' conviction was then overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986 on several grounds that arguably highlight the dangers in hate-crime prosecution. Because Ebens had admitted committing the actual act, the prosecution only had to prove the reasons why Ebens had killed Chin, specifically, that Ebens had done so because of Chin's race and in order to interfere with Chin's right to enjoy the strip club. However, in trying to prove Ebens' motives, the prosecution and an activist lawyer took improper actions, the Sixth Circuit ruled. First, an activist lawyer (who had founded an Asian-American advocacy group) had coached eyewitnesses into giving testimony that would show more clearly that Ebens had made racial epithets and that racist and that would help get a conviction; the Sixth Circuit ruled that the defense should have been fully informed of the extent of coaching and should have been allowed to play complete tapes of such sessions to the jury. Second, federal prosecutors improperly used a 1974 incident to show that someone who may have been Ebens had prejudices against blacks; the Sixth Circuit said this was too vague and remote to be admissible evidence as to whether Ebens acted with prejudice towards Chin in 1982. Third, the Sixth Circuit criticized federal prosecutors for injecting personal comments into his closing statement and for using public sentiment to convict rather than ensuring a fair trial. Federal prosecutors tried to prosecute Ebens again, this time in a different venue, Cincinnati. Ebens was acquitted in 1987 of all charges. Ebens later that year settled a civil lawsuit brought by Chin's estate; Ebens agreed to pay up $200 a month for two years and then 25 percent of his net pay to Chin's estate until the accumulated payments reached $1.5 million, a sum Ebens was unlikely ever to meet.
Sources: Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforcement, Valerie Jenness and Ryken Grattet (Russell Sage Foundation, 2001). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes : Criminal Law & Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998). United States v. Ebens, 800 F.2d 1422 (6th Cir. 1986). Associated Press, Slayer is acquitted of civil rights violation, New York Times, May 2, 1987. Reuters, $1.5 million in wrongful death, New York Times, July 31, 1987. Seth Mydans, 2 of 4 officers found guilty in Los Angeles beating, New York Times, April 18, 1993. The American Civil Liberties Union has a May 11, 1999 statement on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 on-line here.
Veterans and Homelessness (last updated January 15, 2002) (back to top)
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about 250,000 veterans are homeless on any given day and up to twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year, altogether comprising about a quarter to a third of the adult homeless population. Almost all homeless veterans are male, roughly 70 percent suffer from alcohol or drug abuse problems, and about 45 percent suffer from mental illness. Roughly 56 percent are black or Hispanic.
A 1996 survey of homeless people by the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC) nationally found that 23 percent of the homeless population had served in the military. Of homeless veterans, about two-thirds had served three or more years of active duty, about 28 percent had been exposed to combat while in service, and most (89 percent) had received an honorable discharge.
Nearly half (47 percent) of the homeless veterans in the NSHAPC survey served during the Vietnam War, with another 32 percent serving from 1975 to 1980. Of homeless veterans, 17 percent served from 1980 to 1990, 15 percent from 1955 to 1964, 8 percent from 1990 on, and 4 percent during the Korean conflict from 1950 to 1955.
Source: Department of Veterans Affairs' Overview of Homelessness, available on-line here. National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping homeless veterans, is on-line here. The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients report, published in 1999 and based on a 1996 national survey, is available here.
Military Burials and Arlington National Cemetery (last updated January 15, 2002) (back to top)
All members of the military who die on active duty are entitled to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery or in one of the 120 national cemeteries maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs. All veterans who retired from active service, received certain decorations, or held certain federal offices can be buried in Arlington, and all veterans who were discharged under conditions other than dishonorable can be buried in one of the VA's national cemeteries.
Arlington National Cemetery, the military cemetery outside Washington D.C., is not operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs but by the army itself. All members of the military who die on active duty, all veterans who retired from active military service (as opposed to just being discharged), and all veterans who were honored with certain decorations or held certain federal offices are eligible for burial there.
Designated a military cemetery in 1864, Arlington National Cemetery is the resting place for more than 260,000 people, with about 5,400 burials a year. The Tomb of the Unknowns is one site at Arlington National Cemetery, holding three unknown servicemen from World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict. The crypt that contained the remains of the Vietnam Unknown has been left empty since his remains were disinterred on May 14, 1998 and identified as that of Air Force 1st Lt. Michael J. Blassie; his family reinterred his remains near their home in St. Louis, Mo.
The VA's National Cemetery Association maintains more than 2.4 million gravesites at 120 national cemeteries in 39 states and in Puerto Rico. The largest and most active national cemetery is Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island, New York, which covers 1045 acres and conducts about 7,000 burials a year.
The VA will pay up to $1,500 in burial expenses for service-related deaths and up to $450 for nonservice-related deaths, as well as some costs of moving the deceased to a VA national cemetery.
Sources: Burial eligibility requirements for VA national cemeteries are and for the Arlington National Cemetery here. Facts about the Arlington National Cemetery are available here. Facts about the VA's national cemeteries are available here.
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
