What makes a “hate” crime more of a crime
This afternoon the House of Representatives is debating HR1592 which is supposed to expand the breadth of what and to whom a “hate” crime is.
I know it’s an oversimplification, but aren’t all crimes “hate” crimes - at least the one’s where an act is done purposefully and knowingly in defiance of the law? So why should additional penalty be attached to conviction of a criminal act when perpetrated on a certain type of individual.
Is it any less wrong to punch the average citizen in the face than it is to punch a transvestite in the face (adding this unique group to those covered by the existing hate crime legislation would add an additional 10 years to the penalty should they be victimized as compared to the non-transvestite, or child, or senior citizen, or pregnant woman)?
Crime is crime. Invoking the thought police and gauging qualifications of hatred to determine penalty is a bad idea.















[…] As I said yesterday, I think all crimes are pretty much hate crimes and I think it’s foolish to think that a crime perpetrated on a member of a protected class of individuals is any more heinous (especially to the victim) than when the same crime is inflicted upon a non-protected victim. Crime is crime and the penalty for a crime should be the same - regardless of who the victim is. […]
May 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm