Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
On the motive issue, as I say in a later post, the court takes aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account during sentencing. I just don't think it should be an element of the offense.
Concerning the "why not" question, my fear, as expressed by others on here as well, is that by separating some groups out for 'special protection,' you raise the ire of those seemingly non-protected groups. You have to remember the bulk of this country (or any other) is not made up of the intelligentsia, they are hardly going to be understanding of the finer points of historical discrimination and potential targeting of those groups. (That's assuming they would even buy it if you explained it to them). Instead, they are going to feel disaffected by the law.
You may say, so what, white males aren't a protected class, let them feel disaffected. My point is that it will create more potential for civil unrest and strife between the objects of the protection and those that aren't. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to claim that the passage of hate crime legislation would incite attacks by one group on another, instead it would take its place in a long list of supposed abuses that a disaffected group will take to citing as justification for their actions. It highlights the differences between groups instead of highlighting the similarities. You are making the protected groups more "the other" than they are now.
What a civil society needs to be focused on is maintaining order in the vast majority of the society on a daily basis. There aren't enough cops or prosecutors in the world to keep order if that is not the case. Yes, punish the crime. Punish it severely. But, in my view, the continued carving up of America into this and that "group" is done at the peril of continuance of civil society. I don't know which straw will break the camel's back, but I think maybe we should stop shoveling.
I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think it's a difference in philosophy. I am a believer that people who victimize others for what they are born deserve that extra bit of deterrance. And, if there isn't general deterrance, I'm ok with the specific deterrance inherant of keeping someone off the streets who would victimize someone for the color of their skin or sexuality.
there are those who say that such laws create more strife? do they? i don't know. i think the people who are full of hate are already full of hatred and it isn't going to make a difference.
that of course is just my opinion.
as to a "civil society".... I'm afraid I think a civil society doessn't tolerate beating to death a young man for being gay.... or beating an hispanic person for being hispanic.
it's a different philosophy certainly, but i think as to such things, I'd rather err on the side of protecting those suspect classes of people who have proven to have targets on their back for the lowlives who would attack them.
I do see your point, I mean after all I went to law school at American University, if there is a more liberal law school, I pity the students. My Crim Law Prof was the General Counsel of Rainbow Push. Jesse Jackson came to our class and we were treated to a rousing "I AM SOME BODY" chorus in class. (Honest to God). I am fully steeped in all the reasons we should favor hate crime laws.
In my civil society, we should value all of the members the same. If anyone gets beaten to death for any reason, or no reason at all, they should get the punishment they deserve. I would hate to be the relative of a murder victim and watch the criminal only get 25 years because my family member was not in a protected class, when life without parole would have be the sentence if they had been.
What of prosecutorial discretion? If you were the prosecutor in the Knoxville cases, where racial tensions were already running high because of the nature of the crimes, would you have had the balls to charge the murders with hate crimes and risk a race war?