Hold on, by this argument there would be no differentiation in sentencing of any kinds of violent crime. The purpose of the particular hate crime law in question isn't to achieve greater retribution for the victims of hate crimes but to clearly indicate that the state regards crimes motivated by hate as being of a distinct nature, as most nations already do in cases where the victims are extremely elderly, or children, or where there is a sexual element or indeed any number of other factors which tend to make the crime more heinous.
You may not see murders committed on the basis of bigotry as being any more heinous than others, but many believe that it is right that societies should indicate that they believe hate crimes deserve to be treated with greater rigour than certain other kinds of crime.
I suspect the retributive aspect of U.S. justice changes the tenor of this debate somewhat, leading I imagine to your posing the idea of the reactions of relatives of victims of murder in ordinary to the harsher sentences of those convicted of hate motivated murder. That only raises my point that there are victims of crimes and relatives of victims of crimes are not always the best judges of how convicted people should be sentenced. The state treats different kinds of crime differently, that's only fair.
Conflating the notion that individual citizens should be treated as equals before the law with the notion that all crimes should be treated equally is specious and unjust.
Ugh, against my better judgement I'm going to reply, but it'll probably be the last time.
You're basically repeating prior arguments that have already been addressed. Crimes being more heinous should be more henious based on the act committed, not the mindset behind the act. If I hear "Intent" or "Motive" again though, I might scream.
Treating different kind of crimes differently is fine, that's not what's being argued. The problem is when you treat these two things differently:
"You're a fucking *insert racial or homosexual epithet* and I hope you die!"
and
"You're a fucking white trash redneck and I hope you die!"
To treat the first as more serious because the state has deemed one group protected, while not protecting the other group is wrong. Treat everyone the same, or don't bother with it. It won't stop the crimes from happening, like I said that's a societal issue.
Also, it does make sentencing more serious here in the US:
Viewpoint: What's Wrong with the Hate-Crimes Bill - TIME
"Which is why it's difficult for me to say that I think she's wrong about what could become her son's most important legacy: a hate-crimes bill before Congress called the Matthew Shepard Act. The bill would expand, far too aggressively, the two existing federal hate-crimes laws. One is from 1968; it allows the Federal Government to prosecute crimes committed on the basis of race, religion and national origin when the victim is engaged in public activities like going to school or eating at a restaurant or attending a concert.
The other is from 1994; it requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for crimes on federal lands in which the victim was selected because of actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation."
Add to that, that the definition for a disability is so incredibly vague, and things get muddier and muddier.
Instead of working to right the entire system, or address the societal ills causing the biases and hatred, we simply pass a law and pretend everything is okay, when that's not the case. In fact, stuff like this probably stalls advancement in true equality, by focusing on something that doesn't solve the root of the problem.
. Pornography may have become vogue and topical in the '70's, but the Maplethorp exhibit was shut down in the '80's. It's slowly made it's way back, and now there are countless reality shows about the making of porn; Larry Flynt seems to be the quintessence of free speech.
