Hate Crime Legislation

[Excerpt] On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, as Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84; H.R. 2647). This law broadens federal jurisdiction over hate crimes by authorizing the Attorney General to provide assistance, when requested by a state, local, or tribal official, for crimes that (1) would constitute a violent crime under federal law or a felony under state or tribal law, and (2) are motivated by the victim\u27s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In other words, hate crimes are traditional crimes during which the offender is motivated by one or more biases considered to be particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Prior to enactment, however, hate crimes were not separate and distinct offenses under federal law. Furthermore, federal jurisdiction over hate crime was limited to certain civil rights offenses. Although there is a consensus that hate crime is deplorable, determining the definitive federal role in addressing hate crime has proved contentious, as reflected in the legislative history and congressional debate. Legislation to widen federal jurisdiction over hate crime was passed by the Senate in the 106th and 108th Congresses, by the House in the 109th Congress, and by both chambers in the 110th Congress. Opponents of hate crime legislation view separate federal offenses for hate crime as redundant and largely symbolic, arguing that separate hate crime offenses would be in addition to the legal prohibitions for traditional crime that already exist under either federal or state law. They also contend that in most cases the federal nexus is tenuous, and that such offenses are best handled at the state and local level. Proponents for creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate crime maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ordinary crime and hate crime. They believe that hate crimes are often perpetrated to send a message of threat and intimidation to a wider group, and that the effects of hate crime extend beyond the particular victim and reflect more pervasive patterns of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and other characteristics. In the 111 * Congress, the House Judiciary Committee amended and ordered reported a hate crimes bill (H.R. 1913; H.Rept. 111 -86) on April 23, 2009. The House passed H.R. 1913 on April 29, 2009. Senator Reid, for Senator Kennedy, introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) on April 28, 2009. Senator Leahy successfully amended the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) with language that is similar to S. 909 on July 16, 2009. The Senate passed S. 1390, amended, on July 23, 2009. The hate crime provisions were included in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647; H.Rept. 111-288). The House passed the conference report on H.R. 2647 on October 7, 2009; the Senate passed it on October 22, 2009. In addition, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced three hate crime-related bills (H.R. 70, H.R. 256, and H.R. 262), and Representative Maloney has introduced a hate crime statistics act (H.R. 823). At issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and harmfulness of hate crimes warrant greater federal intervention to ensure that such crimes are systematically addressed at all levels of government. Another related issue is the completeness and comprehensiveness of national hate crime data. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced (H.R. 3419), which would amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require data collection on crimes committed against homeless persons. Senator Benjamin Cardin introduced an identical bill (S. 1765). On several occasions, the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to mark up this bill during the 111th Congress, but consideration of this bill was postponed

Ingroup/outgroup dynamics and agency markers in Italian parliamentary language. A gender-based socio-psychological analysis of the speeches of men and women deputies (2001 and 2006).

The most recent literature on gender differences in language use has shown that the Italian political communication enacted by men and women parliamentarians only partly reflects and reproduces the asymmetries and stereotypes widespread in society. Starting from an anti-essentialist perspective, which holds that language differences between men and women speakers are much less extensive than claimed in the past, we analysed 463 parliamentary speeches in the course of the XIVth legislature (5-2001 / 4-2006) in four parliamentarian pairs, differentiated by gender and political orientation. The general aim was to explore the socio-psychological constructs of agency and ingroup/outgroup dynamics as revealed by linguistic behaviour in men/women parliamentarians. The two constructs were detected by specific linguistic markers in the interventions of men/women parliamentarian pairs. Specifically, for agency, we detected: (1a) pronoun variations between singular and plural first person (I, we); (1b) amplitude of we as either specific or superordinate; (1c) conditional modal form of verbs. For ingroup/outgroup dynamics, we detected: (2a) pronoun variation between first and second plural person (we vs. you) and (2b) their valence. Lexicographical analysis was carried out with statistical packages TaLTaC2 and TreeTagger on a corpus of 432,671 words. Chi-square and z-test were applied to word frequencies, while Student’s t-tests were applied to gender comparisons. The results showed reduced variability between men/women parliamentarians in the use of linguistic devices, confirming the weakness of the essentialist and binary logic that has long dominated the field of studies on language and gender

Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues

[Excerpt] In 1993, new laws and regulations pertaining to homosexuals and U.S. military service came into effect reflecting a compromise in policy. This compromise, colloquially referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” holds that the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of military capability. Service members are not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss their homosexuality. This compromise notwithstanding, the issue has remained politically contentious. Prior to the 1993 compromise, the number of individuals discharged for homosexuality was generally declining. Since that time, the number of discharges for homosexual conduct has generally increased until recently. Constitutional challenges to the former and current military policies regarding homosexuals followed in the wake of the new 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual conduct. However, the legal picture was complicated by the Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overruled Bowers by declaring unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. In addition, unsettled legal questions remain as to whether a discharge based solely on a statement that a service member is homosexual transgresses constitutional limits. Meanwhile, efforts to allow individuals of the same sex to marry legally appear unlikely to affect the DOD policy in the near term, since such individuals are barred from serving in the military, although court challenges are possible. In recent years, many academic institutions have enacted rules that protect homosexuals from discrimination on campus. As a result, colleges, universities, and even high schools have sought to bar military recruiters from their campuses and/or to eliminate Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs on campus because of the DOD policy on homosexuals in the military. At the same time, legislation has been enacted that bars giving federal funds to campuses that block access for military recruiters. On March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court ruling in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), and upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, which prohibits certain federal funding to higher educational institutions that deny access by military recruiters to their students equal to that provided to other employers. On November 14, 2006, the San Francisco school board voted 4-2 to phase out Junior ROTC over two years. That phase-out was later delayed by an additional year. This report will be updated as events warrant

The Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed P.L. 111-321 into law. It calls for the repeal of the existing law (Title 10, United States Code, §654) barring open homosexuality in the military by prescribing a series of steps that must take place before repeal occurs. One step was fulfilled on July 22, 2011, when the President signed the certification of the process ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which was repealed on September 20, 2011. However, in repealing the law and the so-called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, a number of issues have been raised, but were not addressed by P.L. 111-321. This report considers issues that Congress may wish to consider as the repeal process proceeds

'Descended from immigrants and revolutionists': how family immigration history shapes representation in Congress

Does recent immigrant lineage influence the legislative behavior of members of Congress on immigration policy? We examine the relationship between the immigrant background of legislators (i.e., their generational distance from immigration) and legislative behavior, focusing on roll-call votes for landmark immigration legislation and congressional speech on the floor. Legislators more proximate to the immigrant experience tend to support more permissive immigration legislation. Legislators with recent immigration backgrounds also speak more often about immigration in Congress, though the size of immigrant constituencies in their districts accounts for a larger share of this effect. A regression discontinuity design on close elections, which addresses selection bias concerns and holds district composition constant, confirms that legislators with recent immigrant backgrounds tend to support pro-immigration legislation. Finally, we demonstrate how a common immigrant identity can break down along narrower ethnic lines in cases where restrictive legislation targets specific places of origin. Our findings illustrate the important role of immigrant identity in legislative behavior and help illuminate the legislative dynamics of present-day immigration policy.Accepted manuscrip