This is blatant unconstitutional law. It violates the equal protection clause by creating different classes of people that get different treatment under the law. It is time to kill this notion that it’s worse to hurt someone if your motivation is biased in some way. A crime is not worse if it happens to a woman versus a man. A crime is not worse if it happens to a gay or a straight. A crime is not worse if it happens to an older person or a younger person.
Further they will not even be fair and apply it equally to whites if their criminals are black and are racially motivated to hurt white people. No protection if gays attack straigh people out of hate. No protections for men if a gang of chicas pound the crap out of him on a sidewalk. How stupid and hypocritical is that? It would be bad enough as it is, it’s even worse in that not everyone gets this asinine protection.
All crimes are hate crimes. This violates equal protection.
20 years ago there was a HATE CRIME here in central Florida, that will always haunt me. A WHITE teenager drove his car on a HOT Florida afternoon to a store, and disappeared. The next day his car was found and when they opened the trunk there he was, with a fever so high and so near death that medics did not know what had happened. He was hospitalized for a long time, and when he “recovered” his life was forever changed, with brain damage, physical damage and cerebral palsy. Four BLACK teens who did not know him did this for “a lark.” They are all out of prison now.............he will NEVER be.
I am sorry and I hate to tell you, but, to reason, to be logical, and share common sense to a liberal, MSM is a futile effort..
So agree with what you wrote. I feel the republicans will vote for it with the excuse of trying to get “special groups” to support the party. Not going to happen.
We need some serious changes to our leadership in the GOP. Newt and his gang need not apply.
To play devil’s advocate:
These laws, by their letter, aim not to make crimes directed toward one person more heinous than the same crime directed toward another person.
They aim, rather, to make the motivations behind a crime render that crime more heinous than the same crime absent those motivations.
So, what we must argue is that evil motivations behind a crime cannot make that crime more evil. But we already do this all the time.
It is the basis of the distinctions among such crimes as murder of the various degrees: the first (intentional, premeditated action); second (in perpetration of a felony); and third (intent to harm but not to kill). Further: manslaughter (which is absent malice and intent); and homicide (which is justified or accidental).
So why are these judgments of motivation valid, but those pertaining to the victim’s perceived or actual race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, (whatever), not valid?
It could be argued that the government has no interest in making these aspects of criminals’ motivation relevant in criminal law.
One other obvious answer is that these crimes will be prosecuted unfairly, which is what you have said. But the issue wouldn’t be whether whites attacked by blacks were treated the same as blacks attacked by whites. The issue is whether whites attacked by blacks *because they are white* are treated the same as blacks attacked by whites *because they are black*.
Again, one can say that the whole argument is outside the realm of Federal concern, and thus moot. But I don’t think that argument will persuade the measure’s proponents. And besides, these measures already exist for race, gender, relgion, etc.
The debate before us is whether to add sexual orientation to the list. And by the letter of the law, this addition would protect straight people from being attacked for being straight. But whether the letter of the law meets up with the minds of prosecutors is, I suppose, the true problem.