[starfish923]

I still don't like this "hate crimes" business, but as long as they're doing it, it's good to see an example of it being applied across the board.

You are right to dislike them. ACTIONS are criminal, not thoughts. Who cares WHAT thoughts caused the actions, it was the ACTION for which one should be convicted.

When THOUGHTS are crimes, we have gone too far to the STUPID side.

[null and void]

When THOUGHTS are crimes, we have gone too far to the STUPID side.

There is precedent...

Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

[kevkrom]

You are right to dislike them. ACTIONS are criminal, not thoughts. Who cares WHAT thoughts caused the actions, it was the ACTION for which one should be convicted.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- I'm thoroughly against the idea of "hate crimes" as a legal category. However, prosecutors should be allowed to introduce evidence of "hate bias" (or whatever you want to call it) in the trial phase in order to help establish motive and also in the sentencing phase to help establish whether or not to criminal remains a threat to others. But they can do that without having separate categories for "hate crimes" per se.