Montana Hate-Crime Legislation

Montana is a very interesting state and one I think bears watching over the next decade. And I'm not just saying because I have many friends from there or because I do research there. Long one of America's most conservative states, it has begun to trend Democratic, particularly in the last election when a Democratic governor was elected and a referendum to allow cyanide leaching for mining was rejected. Now you have the Montana legislature seeking to expand the state's hate-crime legislation to include gays, the disabled, and gender.

Maybe not surprisingly in such a rapidly changing state, you now have the odd combination of a fairly conservative legislature looking to expand hate-crime legislation and the editors of the Missoulian, the main paper in the state's liberal bastion of Missoula arguing against the idea of hate-crime legislation at all.

Here's the text of the editorial:

Do you suppose someone beaten bloody by a complete stranger feels less victimized than, say, a naturalized citizen who is beaten bloody by a complete stranger? Neither do we. Should it be less of a crime to murder a person of color than a white person? Of course not. Then can you explain why, under Montana law, it's a worse crime to murder a person of color than it is to murder some races than it is others? Neither can we. Don't think the line in the Montana Constitution that guarantees "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws" means what it says - that we're all equal in the eyes of the law? So do we. Montana legislators once again are debating expanding the state's "hate crime" statute. As it now reads, the law allows judges to impose tougher sentences on criminals who victimize people based on race, creed, religion, color and national origin. Now lawmakers are talking about adding gender, disability and sexual orientation to the list of special victims against whom crimes are to be considered worse than the crimes committed against other Montanans.... All of the offenses covered by the hate-crime statute already are against the law. If that doesn't deter offenders, making them against two laws won't either. This is feel-good legislation that, because it reneges on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, shouldn't make anyone feel very good.

This is via Orcinus. He used to work at the Missoulian and wrote a wicked letter tearing there ideas apart. Check it out. I won't spend the time tearing it apart myself unless a reader happens to agree with the editorial or wants me to go into it. I will say however that there is a funny correlation between the enforcement of civil rights legislation in the South and the decline of lynching. So to say that there is no deterrant doesn't make very much sense. Also, this editorial ignores the historical legacy of racism and oppression in this nation and the world. But see, now I'm starting to go into it. Must stop now.