Reply #39: Nobody's saying...

[Sapphocrat]

...that every assault on a gay person will automatically be deemed an anti-gay hate crime. Sometimes people just kill people, and orientation has nothing to do with it. I recognize that, and I would never want to see our glorious, if often flawed, justice system turn into a black-and-white proposition.

The very structure of our justice system is the reason we can debate such issues at all: We have at our disposal such things as "degree" (was it first degree murder? involuntary manslaughter?), and "extenuating circumstances" -- all of which serve to protect the accused, before the accuser.

Which is as it should be. God forbid it should be any other way.

Certainly, there are drawbacks to assessing motive -- just as there are drawbacks to assessing degree of guilt. In answer to your question, "Who makes that determination, and how do they do so?" the answer is: the same people who determine degree of guilt, in the same way we do now.

But my original point remains: If you believe you cannot prove anti-gay bias in a physical assault, then you must believe you cannot prove anti-anything bias in housing or employment (or, come to think of it, voting).

Btw... A killing B doesn't strike me as a hate crime, but a "crime of passion." E killing F, however, sounds like a hate crime.

Do you remember the story of Alan Berg? Is there any question his murder was a hate crime, based on E not liking F's politics? (I also find it perfectly appropriate that his killers were also convicted of violating Berg's civil rights. That's what this is all about.)