Has there ever been a Supreme Court test of “hate crime?”
I honestly just cannot see how it can hold together.
Crime should be punished in terms of the damage it causes. That much is understandable to anyone. In that context the brutal sadistic beating of a homosexual that results in death might warrant a more severe punishment than a lover’s quarrel where a jilted spouse spouse pulls out a pistol and consigns her wandering hubby to room temperature.
However, in both cases, what is being punished is the ACT. The reason, the motivation, the mindset of the perpetrator can and should be considered within the context of the crime, but are not — can’t be — criminal acts in themselves.
This is scary. Hate-crime is just a hop, skip and a jump away from thought-crime. And when they get around to examining what you read, watch on TV, access via the Internet for evidence of criminal thought, we are all in definite trouble.
Equal treatment under the law for all unless they are a member of a protected race group or a sexual pervert.
Those people are more equal than the rest of us.
So, in this case, if a criminal pounds the snot out of someone for the heck of it he gets off easier than if he pounds the snot out of someone because he doesn’t like their particular perversion.
Hate crime isn’t close to being a thought crime - it IS a thought crime.
The difference in the level of punishment is due to the thought in the perp’s mind not the severity or character of the crime. The same crime is treated differently depending on the thought in the perp’s mind at the time the crime is committed.