Quick: when I say “Matthew Shepard,” what do you think? A man killed because he was gay? Or just some poor sap in the wrong place at the wrong time? More on that in a minute.
Hate crime legislation aimed at making it a federal crime to assault someone for being a homosexual passed the House last week, and could be on its way to becoming law. It sounds great, doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t be against a law that would prosecute someone for targeting another person based on bigotry and bias? What could be wrong with this scenario?
Plenty. I’m all for prosecuting criminals for their acts, especially violent criminals. I’m pro-death penalty, if truth be told. I figure that if you deliberately take someone else’s life, you should pay by forfeiting yours. Not very PC of me, but there you have it.
However, it bothers me that individuals may soon be prosecuted for not just the crime, but the “behind the scenes” thoughts that may have contributed to that crime. Ken Klukowski, writing for Fox, explains why:
It’s bad public policy to try to take specific views or beliefs and make them part of a crime. Most violent crimes involve some form of hate, and it’s much easier to prove what a person did or did not do, compared with what was in their heart regarding specific groups of people when they did it.
A crime is a crime. It shouldn’t matter that the victim was a target because he was black, because he was gay, or because she reminded the perpetrator of the mother who abandoned him when he was in kindergarten. Perhaps these things should matter to profilers because it helps them to narrow down the possibilities when hunting down suspects, and to psychiatrists who are studying the damaged human psyche.
But as for the crime, it should be enough that the crime was committed.
The tragic poster boy for this movement is Matthew Shepard, a young gay man in Wyoming who in 1998 was found brutally beaten, tied to a fence and left for dead. He later died of his injuries. The story gained national prominence when it was reported as a “hate crime” and Shepard’s cruel fate became the basis for a national, pop culture movement. A play called “The Laramie Project” was staged all over the nation, including certain star-studded performances, and was turned into a movie, as well.
Gay blogger Perez Hilton even got in on the act last year when he filed a $25,000 lawsuit against Black Eyed Peas manager Polo Marina. Marina allegedly hit Hilton following an argument between Hilton and Black Eyed Peas member will.i.am. Hilton offered to donate the money (if he won the lawsuit) to the Matthew Shepard Foundation – a preemptive offer that was refused because Hilton called will.i.am a “f***ing f****t.”
Problem is, new details about the Shepard murder emerged in 2004. And the killers, now in jail for their crimes, told 20/20’s Elizabeth Varga that drugs motivated their crime, not the fact that Shepard was gay.
[Aaron] McKinney told Vargas he set out the night of Oct. 6, 1998, to rob a drug dealer of $10,000 worth of methamphetamine. But after several attempts, McKinney was not able to carry out his plan.
[Russell] Henderson said he thought if he could keep McKinney drinking, he’d forget the robbery plan.
But according to McKinney, when he encountered Shepard at the Fireside Lounge, he saw an easy mark.
McKinney told “20/20” Shepard was well-dressed and assumed he had a lot of cash.
Shepard was sitting at the bar, McKinney recalls. “He said he was too drunk to go home. And then he asked me if I’d give him a ride. So I thought, yeah, sure, what the hell,” according to McKinney.
All three got in the front seat of McKinney’s pickup, and Henderson took the wheel. McKinney told police that at some point Shepard reached over and grabbed his leg. In response, McKinney said, he hit him with his pistol. “I was getting ready to pull it on him anyway,” he said.
McKinney says he asked for, and got, Shepard’s wallet, which had only $30 in it. But even though Shepard handed over his money, McKinney continued beating him.
When pressed by Vargas as to why he continued beating Shepard after he had already taken his wallet, McKinney said, “Sometimes when you have that kind of rage going through you, there’s no stopping it. I’ve attacked my best friends coming off of meth binges.”
Not only did Shepard’s friends and the community jump to the conclusion that the crime was related to his sexuality, but McKinney’s girlfriend Kristen Price also made statements to police to that effect. Yet she too told Varga a different story:
Price now says that at the time of the crime she thought things would go easier for McKinney if his violence were seen as a panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance.
But today, Price tells Vargas the initial statements she made were not true and tells Vargas that McKinney’s motive was money and drugs. “I don’t think it was a hate crime at all. I never did,” she said.
Were Henderson and McKinney – and Price – telling the truth in 1998 or in 2004? Does it really matter? They admitted to the beating that ended in Shepard’s death and are serving life sentences. Any new stories won’t be helping them at all at this point, so why lie now?
And what of Shepard? He was a troubled young man who was HIV positive and into the drug scene too. This is not to say I blame the victim – far from it. But his issues are relevant to what happened after his death. Cliff Kincaid explores this theme further:
Why were the stories about this crime so wrong? The gay rights movement wanted to depict Shepard as an innocent victim of a homophobic society. This played into their demands for legislation to curb so-called “hate crimes.” One of the perpetrators used that to his advantage, arguing when he went on trial that he went into a panic when Shepard tried to proposition him at a bar. His girlfriend made the same claim in the media, including on “20/20.” But now they say it was all a ruse, designed to get him a reduced sentence by suggesting that he wasn’t in control of his faculties when the murder occurred. The ploy failed. Both of those involved in the murder got life in prison.
ABC and correspondent Elizabeth Vargas are now under heavy fire from the homosexual lobby for dispelling the Shepard myth. But ABC and Vargas ALSO show Shepard to be a very depressed young man, on the verge of suicide, because of his homosexual lifestyle. The “gay rights” lobby doesn’t want to face up to that. Matthew wasn’t “gay” and “proud.” He was profoundly troubled.
When we begin to prosecute for the thoughts behind the crime, we open a very wiggly can of worms that can’t be shut again. Who’s to say this won’t become a weapon in and of itself?
Imagine: you are accused of assaulting a man. It happens during a bar brawl or a botched robbery attempt. The man is gay, and he says he was targeted for that very reason. You know it’s untrue – he just happened to be in the right place at the right time for your scheme – but how do you prove otherwise? Suddenly a crime that might have gotten you (hypothetically) two to five in the hoosegow becomes one that gets you (hypothetically) ten to fifteen, thanks to its heightened status. The prosecutors are suddenly psychological experts who can read your mind, right?
And, what if – what if – you didn’t even do it? What if it’s a case of mistaken identity, which can and does (unfortunately) happen? What if it’s a case of revenge? If the blasphemy laws in Pakistan can be used as a way of settling personal scores, who’s to say hate crimes in the U.S. won’t be used in the same way?
Then there’s the problem with double standards. If one can be prosecuted for the thoughts that go with a crime perpetrated on a minority, what about the opposite scenario? Will a white man beaten by one or more black men just because he’s a white guy in the wrong neighborhood get the same kind of justice? Would a movie be made about the white guy left for dead after the black guys are done working him over? Don’t hold your breath. It doesn’t fit the current PC mantra permeating the entertainment industry. I haven’t heard about a movie being made of the wrongful prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players, have you?
Finally, will hate crimes morph from the thoughts behind a violent crime to the thoughts themselves? Will we have to worry about saying the wrong thing about the wrong person for fear of it being misinterpreted as something that “could” lead to violence? I’m not talking about actual threats, but tasteless jokes and derogatory comments could become a lot more than just reasons for dirty looks.
Thanks to the pop culture myth that helped perpetrate the false reason for Matthew Shepard’s senseless death, we could now all be facing regulations that resemble “1984” more than they do “Land of the Free.” Is this really the direction in which we want to head?
I’ll end with a quote from Camille Paglia on the subject: Hate crimes legislation, in my view, simply cushions people in their own subgroups and gives them a damaging sense of false entitlement. The world will always be a very dangerous place where anyone can cross paths with a psychopath.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.