No “hate crime” laws are needed for a crime of “assault” - assault is crime that is definable regardless of the motive of the perpetrator.
If someone is a victim of assualt are they any less of a victim if the motive of the perpetrator cannot be found to fit a definition of a “hate crime” (what about: “she’s might %%^%%$ husband/wife and I hate him/her”).
Hate crimes are nothing other than “thought crimes”. It is not really the “assualt” they are being prosecuted for, as no “hate crime” is necessary to prosecute ANY assault. They are being prosecuted for the thought they demonstrated or expressed at the time of the assault.
A “hate crime” is a thought crime. It attempts to prosecute a particular motive for the same crime - assault - that a different motive would be excused for no more than what it is - the motive.
I do not oppose the bringing forward in the prosecution of an assault the evidence for the motive behind the assualt, no matter what that motive is. But to call one motive a separate crime is a miscarraige of justice and is really nothing other than prosecuting someone for their thoughts.
Accepting the very legal concept of “hate crime” is a totally dangerous slippery slope down to where it only takes some majority to say some opionions are “hate crimes”.
I totally agree. The idea of a hate crime is just a way of not just punishing a criminal but punishing what the left would call “thought co-conspirators” who because they see something negatively and express those views it supposedly is just as guilty as the violent criminal who committed the act.