You really don't understand that the intent included in existing law is already enough? It's enough, no arbitrary "hate" needs to be added. I the prosecution can show a pattern of, say, hatred of gays, that goes to establish motive—even with no "hate crime" laws on the books. Intent is very important, but there is no reason to single out certain motives as somehow worse. If you are murdered, or assaulted, the heinousness of the crime is in the ACTION.
Since existing law allows for "hate" to help determine motive, which speaks to what they get charged with. Murder vs manslaughter, etc. If the crime is premeditated, it's murder, for example. Say some scumbags were out to go kill a "fag" and planned and prepared to do so. That's murder (intent, and premeditation). The perp yelling "faggot" while he murders the poor guy doesn't make the murder any more heinous than another perps someplace else yelling "cheeseburger" while brutally murdering someone else in the same way. The victim is just as dead, just as brutally. There is no reason that the one murderer should get off easier for yelling "cheeseburger." Execute BOTH murderers. That's the end result of hate-crime laws, some who are convicted of the same crimes get off easy because they didn't throw an epithet while committing the crime.
Existing criminal law is just fine, thank you, it can deal with so-called "hate crimes" without the litmus test of reading people's minds.
|