Hate Crime Bill, S.622

July 13, 1999

Dear Honorable Senator,

In the next couple of days, S.622 (the hate crime bill) will likely come up for a vote. There are two issues, which I would like you to consider before making this vote. First, the statistics; second, the law.

The statistics clearly show that hate crime is a nonevent except for the media and politicians. For 1995, the statistics show 8,433 hate crime offenders, yet there were 13,175,100 crimes or less than .064% hate crimes. The major hate crimes are 39% intimidation and 26% property damage. Consider, if I'm killed by a non-hateful person, the federal government is happy, but if a hateful person threatens me, the government will use its mighty resources to punish. Certainly, there must be criminal activity that affects more than .064% of victims which needs attention. More teachers are assaulted in Chicago by students then are people victimized by hate crime nationally. Maybe the senate should pass a teachers crime bill first.

Fortunately, hate crime is extremely rare. However, the recent tragic killing of Matthew Shepard has justified the Senate enacting UN hate crime law, crafted in Italy last fall. Yet, sex hate crimes only comprise .0084% of victims. Sex victims have a greater threat from lightening then hate crimes. Maybe the senate should first make lightening a federal crime.

The second consideration is one of law. Certainly, the senate can use its usual tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause to do anything it chooses. However, common sense clearly demonstrates the unlawfulness of this law. Targeted politically correct privileged groups will get greater protection under the law, while other groups may, in fact, be victimized as a result of less protection under the law.

More discomforting is having judges and juries second guessing motives. They already have enough trouble deciding guilt or innocence, and DNA has subsequently proven the difficulty and errors. Now, in addition to the risk of a faulty guilt or innocence verdict, you will compound the risk by assessing motives. Worse yet, by adding the motive component to a trial, the jury may be swayed by the hate issue and having determined the defendant hateful, automatically assume guilt rather than vice versa. And, what DNA type test do we have to check on the correctness of motive convictions?

In closing, Justice Rehnquist said it best. Congress is making everything a federal crime and it needs to stop. Thought crime is a perfect place to stop.

Respectfully,

Michael Dullea

╪