That’s nice.
And the rest of us, those of us with no snobby ivy league connections?
We deserve less because???
Should threats toward a set of persons be punished more harshly because that set of persons is more likely to be threatened?
That question could be applied to this, but also to laws against threatening/murdering judges, or cops, or the President of the United States.
From an equal-justice perspective, it seems that all people should have the same protection. But that is not the way our laws are oriented.
The laws seem to express a different principal: that people with legitimate roles in our society should be able to perform those roles without threat, and that those especially susceptible to threat should be protected by additional levels of deterrence.
I believe in equal protection under the law. But the people who pass these laws aren’t operating under abstract notions or justice; they are responding to a judge murdered by a mobster or a cop gunned down in the street.
Also, it’s funny you should pose the question in the way that you did..
I’d be willing to bet that this law was created in response to a specific incident, probably having to do with some spoiled “snobby” kid threatening (or worse) a teacher or professor who ruined his chances at Harvard.