Reply #76: Two things

[FreeState]

If you start prosecuting people-- adding special penalties based on the motivation of the crime (i.e. what they think) then what will stop the government from going one step further and prosecuting you strictly for what you think -- or what you say.

I agree that hate crimes are hideous, but rather than legislating "hate" as a crime -- shouldn't we allow jury's and judges the leeway they need to give out appropriate sentencing. The more despicable or hideous the crime -- the greater the sentence. And motivation plays a big part of that.

Two things. We have a system of law that uses intent as to why a crime was committed. You have first and second degree murder (pre-meditated/spur of the moment). There is good reason for this too. If some one is killed by a car, was the person run over after planning it or was it an accident that could have been prevented if the driver had followed the law. The same is with hate crime legislation. If a violent crime occurs was it because the accused wanted to make a quick buck holding up a store, or was the violent crime committed because the accused targeted the victim because of her sexual orientation? Both of these crimes are very different and should be treated differently.

Secondly leaving a Jury and Judge up to figure out the punishment is exactly why we need mandatory Hate Crimes sentencing guidelines. This is for equal protection - if you do not think there are juries/Judges out there that would look the other way because the victim was a lesbian you need to get out more... or read the history of Harvey Milk.