Home » Analysis »

November 23, 2010 Print

FBI’s ‘Hate Crimes’ Report Once Again Dispels Myths

by Bruce Hausknecht

Good news: Hate crimes went down in 2009. Better news: It’s the lowest number of hate crimes since the FBI began reporting them.  Ironic news: In the same year that we now know was the lowest year on record for hate crimes, Congress passed the speech-chilling, religious-freedom-killing Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act of 2009.

Since the Matthew Shepard Act was a high-priority issue for the gay activist lobby, it’s interesting to note that gays and lesbians were also beneficiaries of the overall drop in hate crimes. The following is a comparison between 2008 and 2009 for hate crime “incidents” (FBI’s term) reported to the FBI in compliance with the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act:

1.) Total number of reporting agencies participating in the annual report – way up – from 13,690 to 14,422

Significance: This latter figure covers a population of 278,948,317, almost the entire country.  You might expect that with the highest number ever of law enforcement agencies participating in the FBI’s reporting process, there would be higher raw numbers of incidents in all categories. However, the opposite proved to be true for 2009.

2.) Total hate crime incidents – down – from 7783 to 6604

Actually this year’s number is the lowest annual number the FBI has on its website, with reports going back to 1995. Also, notice how small these raw numbers are in the first place. Some perspective is necessary. 6604 hate crimes (of which only about 2600 were categorized as violent) compared to roughly 1.3 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in 2009.  No violent crime should be condoned, including hate crimes, but when you hear someone talk about an “epidemic” of hate crimes in the U.S., please smile and tell them you know better.

3.) Total number of sexual orientation hate crime incidents (including violent and non-violent) – down – from 1297 to 1223

4.) Number of murders related to sexual orientation – down from 5 to 1

5.) Number of rapes related to sexual orientation – down from 6 to 4

6.) Number of aggravated assaults related to sexual orientation – down from 232 to 227

7.) Number of simple assaults related to sexual orientation – down from 501 to 493

The reduction in sexual orientation hate crimes is even stranger when you consider that the increasing demand by gay activists for more prosecutions has resulted in such bizarre examples as mortgage fraud and gay-on-gay violence being treated as “hate” crimes.

As I’ve said before, the Matthew Shepard Act was a feel-good political act and a redundant criminal law, and together with its chilling effects on our First Amendment freedoms, is one of the poorest examples of federal legislation I have seen.

Related content:

  1. Thank Your Senators on DADT Vote
  2. DOMA Repeal Still May Be in Works
  3. Last Week of Congress? Family Matters Roundup
  4. Latest FBI Hate Crimes Report Analysis – Still No Epidemic
  5. Self-Hate Crimes Law?


Print



  • Peter

    Hate crimes are down BECAUSE of the new law.

    • Bruce Hausknecht

      Peter – the Matthew Shepard Act wasn’t passed and signed into law until late October of 2009. No chance for it to have any effect on overall 2009 numbers. Actually it wasn’t until just recently that the DOJ elected to take on a couple cases under the law.

  • DakotaMark

    Like all laws, the Matthew Shepard Act should only be feared by those who break it. Senator DeMint’s letter states that so-called biblical truth may be criminalized as hate speech. The senator is mistaken unless the ‘truth’ is used to incite criminal acts. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment as it should be.

    For example, Leviticus 20:13 clearly states that homosexual males should be put to death. It is reasonable to consider a statement advocating the death of a person because of their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. to be hate speech regardless of the source. When hate speech is used to incite criminal acts, there may be legal consequences as there should be. Otherwise, such speech is protected.

    DeMint claims that First Amendment rights have ‘convinced many religious leaders that their opinions are not welcome in political debates.’ I do not deny that. However, many other religious leaders clearly disagree. The constitution guarantees their right to speak out on political issues and many are well known for doing so. Your fellow Christian Fred Phelps is an egregious though atypical example. More mainstream examples would include Pat Roberson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell.

    Leaders of religious organizations that have asked for and been granted 501 (C) (3) tax exemptions must accept the limitations of their free speech rights that apply to all such organization. If they find the restrictions to be burdensome, the organizations are free to refuse that exemption.

    The statement at your ‘mortgage fraud etc’ link deceptively omits what preceded the quoted portion of New York’s hate crime law. The law target anyone who “intentionally selects the person … because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.” It is the intentional selection that is the problem. The belief itself is not a crime nor should it be.

    Please note that religion and religious practice are included as protected classes. I agree that they should be on the list along with the others. Recent history provides clear evidence that churches, mosques, and synagogues have all been target by criminals. Enhancing the penalties for committing such crimes is reasonable.

    You are welcome to claim that the Matthew Shepard Act is “one of the poorest examples of federal legislation I have seen.” Do not be surprised that people who do not embrace prejudice and bigotry disagree.

  • DakotaMark

    In my earlier comment I mistakenly wrote that “DeMint claims that First Amendment rights have ‘convinced many religious leaders that their opinions are not welcome in political debates.’”

    His claim is about the First Amendment’s establishment clause rather that about rights.

    I apologize for not spotting the error before submitting my comment.

    I also failed to point out that while total hate crimes went down by over 15% (6604 vs. 7783), sexual orientation hate crimes declined by less that 6% (1223 vs. 1297) and constituted more than 18% (1223 vs. 6604) of the total.

    I am confident that we are both pleased to see a drop in all hate crimes and I agree that claims of a hate crime ‘epidemic’ are unjustified.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.