Still, I think it is a bit creepy for the government to say that a class-based murder is any worse than a murder done for hire or for revenge.
In fact, I guess to avoid the “hate crime” charge, a defendant could say, “I am not saying I killed him, but he DID 1.) steal money from me 2.) mess with my girl 3.) call me names 4.) cheat at poker -— etc.
In other words, prove that there was a different motive, besides hate -— but these libs don't seem to care about other motives, as long as “hate” existed, somehow, it is a “Hate crime” if that hate was based on identity with some protected group.
Remember how we went from, thankfully, protecting abused wives to allowing wives who murdered abusive husbands to get off the hook? Sometimes, when no REAL abuse even took place?
How long until those who “commit” these “hate crimes” can be bumped off, and their lives will be judges less valuable, since, after all, these were “haters” were they not?
When you make some lives more valuable than others, simple logic says that the value of those lives, not protected to the same extent, have DECLINED in value.
Prove you killed a “hate criminal” and you might get a slap on the wrist!
“Remember how we went from, thankfully, protecting abused wives to allowing wives who murdered abusive husbands to get off the hook? Sometimes, when no REAL abuse even took place?”
Yes, I also remember cases where women who feared rape could use deadly force, based entirely upon their perception of their supposed attacker’s actions. Not to say I don’t want women killing rapists, but what if the guy was just walking down he street? There have to be some overt actions, some standard the court can use for a “point of no return,” after which, and only after which, it’s okay to use deadly force.
The problem with hate crimes, of course, is that they’re not going to bother with perceptions, let alone set standards for determining when hate is present. That is, they can’t ask the victim whether he perceived hate in his attacker. Witnesses, of course, could be asked their opinion. But what are they, psychologists? Social scientists? No.
Unless it’s painfully obvious, they’ll only be able to go by what the attacker says, and more often, the larger social groups to which each side belongs. In other words, two gay guys, regular crime. Straight guy vs. gay guy? “Hate”.
Bottom line, this is all about throwing a bone to the gay rights lobby, and creating a protected class. Which, by the way, won’t actually be protected. If assualt and/or murder charges aren’t enough to deter an attack, what effect do you think a little added time for “hate” will have?
Finally, our stupid leaders might look into tackling actual problems at some point. Gay-bashing, however horrible, is like a drop in the pond compared to black-on-black crime, for instance.