Just curious, but would you punish someone who killed another person in a drunken bar fight with the same vigor you would punish someone that gathered toghether a gang of men and marched down the street in white cloths and torches and burn a cross in a black man’s yard, before pulling him out of his house and stringing him up in the tree out front?

So you honestly beleive those two crimes fit in the same category, deserving the same punishment for the taking of a life? I’m not saying I support hate crimes legislation, but I have a hard time getting my head around two such disparate actions and saying they are BOTH hate crimes by definition. I for one would punish the latter much harder than the former.

The government always tries to factor in the violator’s thinking when determining their crime. I believe they refer to it as motivation. So that is nothing new, and is absolutely necessary to properly determine the extent of a crime, who may have committed the crime, and to convincingly prosecute them.

But, like you, I do have somewhat of a problem with hate-crime legislation, and can’t necessarily fault the Preachers for their concerns.

One the one hand, I believe that violent crimes, of any kind, are as atrocious as the next. Murder is murder, assault is assault, and prosecuting ? in the case of hate crimes ? based on what the assailant’s beliefs were regarding their victim, seems a dangerous road to go down.

I think, as you pointed out, it can certainly lead to the government becoming thought-police.

On the other hand, hate crimes in this country target very specific groups of people, and by doing so, may need to be prosecuted differently.

Either way, the “emotional harm” part of the legislation seems the most dangerous to me.