Taking hate crime laws in the right direction

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a monumental resolution Wednesday to include sexual orientation, gender and gender identity in the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which was formerly and is still colloquially known as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.\nHate crime legislation can be a touchy subject. Some argue it violates free speech rights, while others claim it is needed to differentiate between everyday crimes and those enacted to intimidate certain groups. Although this law only provides federal funding to local law enforcement officials investigating hate crimes -- and not explicit penalties or prevention measures -- we still believe it is a positive step in securing equality for all Americans.\nThis could be especially important in Indiana, one of only seven states without hate crime legislation. \nThere were 1,239 recorded incidents involving a sexual orientation bias in 2003, according to the FBI. In fact, studies cited by the American Psychological Association have found some offenders "perceive that they have societal permission to engage in violence against homosexuals." To complicate matters, hate crime reporting is voluntary on the part of both the victim and local law enforcement officials, so there are likely many more victims than FBI statistics reveal. The study found that "one-third of the hate crime victims reported the incident to law enforcement authorities, compared with two-thirds of gay and lesbian victims of non-bias crimes." Obviously, the intimidation tactics are working.\nAlthough still far from becoming law, this bill is monumental because it marks the first time the House has passed a measure to include sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. It was first passed in the Senate in 1999, and has been passed twice more since then. However, until now, it has always failed to survive the House.\nEven though some argue hate crime legislation is a form of "thought police," the truth is that most legislation relies on the intent of the perpetrator. For example, in Indiana, the only difference between murder and manslaughter is that a murder requires "malice aforethought," whereas manslaughter does not.\nIn an ideal world, hate crime legislation would be unnecessary, but unfortunately, hate crimes are still widespread. Often, local law enforcement, particularly in small towns and suburbs, does not have the resources to fully investigate such crimes. By giving federal grants, the government ensures financial constraints will not be a consideration when local jurisdictions decide whether or not to prosecute offenses as hate crimes.\nRegardless of whether or not President Bush vetoes the bill, the House of Representatives has made undeniable progress toward recognizing the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.\nWe applaud the steps taken by the House to ensure all Americans receive equal protection under the law.