Determining whether a particular policy has been successful in reaching its intended consequences can be tough. In the case of the Shepard Byrd Act, which was signed into law in 2009, is not so easy to analyze due to some of the flaws within the scope of the act, its implementation as well as the hesitance of marginalized people to get involved with law enforcement. Despite these afore mentioned issues, I believe several important issues need examination to judge the effectiveness of this groundbreaking legislation. We should begin by asking whether law enforcement personnel treat LGBT people who are victims of violence with dignity, without bias and are held to that standard on a national level since we are evaluating a federal policy.
…show more content…
We need to be certain that all states and all jurisdictions are providing data to the F.B.I and unfortunately, within the policy itself lies a weakness, reporting is voluntary and not a mandate of the law. Some police agencies do not collect or disclose the data and as a result some states have never reported a hate crime against LGBT people to the F.B.I. Currently, seventeen states have hate crime legislation that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity, thirteen include only gender identity, sixteen do not include sexual orientation or gender and four states have no hate crime legislation on their books at all. Without federal mandated reporting in addition to state legislation in place, it is unlikely that statistical data is a true reflection of the violent crimes committed against LGBT …show more content…
Since the addition of gender identification was added to reporting in 2013, crimes motivated by gender identification rose from 31 in 2013 to 114 in the 2015, according to the latest available F.B.I. reports (F.B.I.). Looking at the data from 2010 to 2015, the available data since policy implementation, shows that there was a very small drop in LGBT hate crimes, 17.7% of all hate crimes in 2010 compared to 18.8% of all hate crimes in 2010. Although it appears there was a decline with regard to crimes against gay, lesbian and bisexuals, due to reporting flaws, unwillingness and fear in the LGBT community to deal with bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, we are not certain of the true numbers of the crime committed. Finally, did the policy address community based programs to educate people about acceptance of those who are different than themselves to reduce bias and hate crimes? Unfortunately, the legislation did not focus on the crucial issue of prevention and we know that punishment does not prevent crime. There are no federal programs currently providing funding for addressing discrimination, bias, bullying and violence against LGBT people (or any other minority groups for that matter). This is key to preventing hate crimes and generally promoting well- being, community acceptance and safer
We need to be certain that all states and all jurisdictions are providing data to the F.B.I and unfortunately, within the policy itself lies a weakness, reporting is voluntary and not a mandate of the law. Some police agencies do not collect or disclose the data and as a result some states have never reported a hate crime against LGBT people to the F.B.I. Currently, seventeen states have hate crime legislation that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity, thirteen include only gender identity, sixteen do not include sexual orientation or gender and four states have no hate crime legislation on their books at all. Without federal mandated reporting in addition to state legislation in place, it is unlikely that statistical data is a true reflection of the violent crimes committed against LGBT …show more content…
Since the addition of gender identification was added to reporting in 2013, crimes motivated by gender identification rose from 31 in 2013 to 114 in the 2015, according to the latest available F.B.I. reports (F.B.I.). Looking at the data from 2010 to 2015, the available data since policy implementation, shows that there was a very small drop in LGBT hate crimes, 17.7% of all hate crimes in 2010 compared to 18.8% of all hate crimes in 2010. Although it appears there was a decline with regard to crimes against gay, lesbian and bisexuals, due to reporting flaws, unwillingness and fear in the LGBT community to deal with bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, we are not certain of the true numbers of the crime committed. Finally, did the policy address community based programs to educate people about acceptance of those who are different than themselves to reduce bias and hate crimes? Unfortunately, the legislation did not focus on the crucial issue of prevention and we know that punishment does not prevent crime. There are no federal programs currently providing funding for addressing discrimination, bias, bullying and violence against LGBT people (or any other minority groups for that matter). This is key to preventing hate crimes and generally promoting well- being, community acceptance and safer