I don't see how anyone could argue against the necessity of this, yet somehow I'm sure someone will. It's really really sad.

Hate crime laws criminalize a thought, not an act. The idea is that you cannot think a certain thought while you commit a certain crime. This is inconsistent with a free society.

Furthermore, according to the constitution, there are only free federal crimes that can be prosecuted: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting.

All other matters are left to the states, as per the 10th amendment.

I agree that that there is a necessity for this. My only concern is that every crime against any other race or sexual orientation not become defined as a hate crime. The definition of "hate crime" needs to be very clearly defined so that some ambitious DA doesn't suddenly prosecute a bunch of hate crimes on his election year.

Well, harmony, here's my take:
No murder should be subject to a *lesser* penalty than another.
It devalues the victim.

If Shepard had been killed by a romantic rival, for instance, instead of homophobes, would his suffering have been any less?

I certainly support increased sentences for any aggravating circumstances, such as torture. I believe that's a feasible compromise position.

People are allowed to be homophobic, racist and sexist. It's an ugly thing, but it's their right. Hate crime laws are a punishment and an interference on the RIGHT of someone to harbor hateful feelings. Punish the actual crime, but don't punish someone for their opinion.

I know this is not a popular position, but I don't support stronger punishments for hate crimes. Punish the offender for the crime he committed, by all means, but I don't want the government to start punishing people for their beliefs.

I think all crimes are essentially hate crimes. You typically don't kill people you love. Does this mean that a woman killed by her ex boyfriend was more deserving to die than a boy who was killed by his classmates for being gay? Do their murderers really deserve different punishments? Is one crime really worse than that other?

I think hate crime laws are looking to a bigger picture of equality in the US. It's one factor in the fight against discrimination for future generations. I understand everyone's right to have their opinion, but these posts I'm reading are really shocking to me. I do respect your opinions though.

If the situation was reversed and your family member, while traveling overseas, was killed for being an American would you think of that as just as bad as being killed by a random person for a random reason? The killing is coming from a place of ignorance and hate....it's not right.

I think we all agree that killing is wrong, for just about any reason. Why is a crime of passion less wrong than a "hate" crime?

Foxy, if someone killed a member of my family, I would want to tie the person up and beat them with a baseball bat. Obviously, that should not be legal.

If a my family member was killed just because he was an American or because he was white, I would want a stronger law against people who kill Americans or kill whites. If he were killed because he was wearing a red cap, I'd want a stronger law against people who kill those wearing red caps. The point is, I don't put much value on what the victim's family wants because they're hardly objective.

I see an important point behind the 'hate crimes' laws. If someone is killed by a jealous rival, prosecutors can consider that it was a crime motivated by passion and come back with a lesser charge, or a judge with a lesser sentence.
Getting angry and shooting someone who cheats with your boyfriend IS different than tying a guy behind your truck and dragging them to their death because you don't like the color of their skin or the people they date and I'm okay with a law that acknowledges that distinction.

I agree with Lain and M2 and TS...

Every crime against another peron is a hate crime. When we start to make laws based on motive, we'll be making laws forever and only further inequality.

We already make laws on motive - there are degrees of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter...

I am going against the grain too- I think ANY crime should be punished regardless of motive. Of course if there is a slew of hate crimes propping up then the solution is to address the reasoning and find a way to educate the ignorant. And a lot of times the hate and racism is ingrained in a culture or a society - I would want to start with that.

Foxy, look at it another way: Increased punishments based on motive are essentially penalties for "thought crimes".

If that term doesn't ring any bells, try reading George Orwell's landmark book 1984. It seems to ring truer every day.

Oop, just realized we have two "Foxie/y" commenters.
My last remark was for FoxyLoxy.

Foxy Lady, personally I think a random murder is worse. It means the murderer was doing it for fun. It is wrong to kill someone, period, regardless of motivation.

I agree with a lot of the posters on here. Punish the crime, not the motivation.

True, I do see your point. I guess I'm thinking of the big picture, let's try and get rid of this hate that is passed down through generations and then causing people to commit these crimes. Maybe punishing for "hate crimes" isn't the only solution, but at least it's a start.

When I was talking about "random crimes" I meant robberies and muggings, not necessarily serial killers and crazy people who do it for fun. Killing someone because you want their money is not very preventable, but maybe killing someone because of their skin color/religion/sexual preference could be? I don't know, that's just my thought.

A lot of you have made very compelling arguments though, against hate crime laws and you've really made me think twice about it. I thank you for that, I always like to expand my knowledge on things.

You can't get rid of hate by passing a law. I wish you could, but it's just not possible. Most times it actually makes things worse.

I don't have anything against the hate crime laws already on the books, but I also don't really see a special need for them. As long as those who kill out of bigotry are given the same appropriate punishments as those who kill for any other reason--meaning, as long as one class of victim isn't devalued over another, then that should be all that's needed.

Jude, I'm a little confused by what you're saying. Are there hate crime laws that do something other than increase penalties for existing crimes?

I wonder though, how things would be if the separate but equal laws were still in place? Do you think there would be more or less discrimination (coming from both sides) or do you think it would be the same? I think laws play some part in changing things, personally.

Mich, my point was that I don't think increased penalties are necessary. I don't think that the existing laws are a big enough deal to take off the books, but I don't think new ones or new categories need to be implemented.

Oh, I get it. Thanks, Jude.

FoxyLoxy, I think the separate but equal question is sort of a chicken-egg situation. Was the law passed because social tides were changing, or did social tides change because the law was passed? Personally, I think society influenced the law in overturning segregation.

No problem, Mich. I'm really tired, so I probably wasn't writing very clearly anyway.

As for the separate-but-equal laws, I think it works both ways. Certain segments of society may have been more amenable to the overturning of those laws than in the past, but the activism of its proponents in government and the judicial system surely helped to push a quicker end to Jim Crow than if it had been left solely up to society at large, in part by showing society that the government was willing to stand up for true equality.

Are you saying a society shapes laws vs. laws shaping a society? If that's case, I guess we could go round and round on that one... lol

Do you agree with hate crime laws when no one is hurt? Like an outward show of hatred for a group of people? Such as hanging a doll on a tree outside their own house?

That is an interesting question, Foxy.

Most of those kinds of situations count as vandalism, don't they? There's usually property damage involved. And some may count as threats of bodily harm, which are also illegal, aren't they?

As far as things like hanging a doll on someone's tree, well, it doesn't cause property damage, but I'd think it could be prosecuted as trespassing.

When I was a kid, we had rocks thrown through our windows and stuff a lot (Asians living in a predominantly not-Asian town). As far as I know, my parents never chose to involve the police. They were pissed as all hell, but they figured it was kids playing stupid pranks and being punks.

True Jude. I was think of hanging a doll outside their own (the hater's) house. Would telling them to take it down be a violation of freedom of speech?

*I was thinking

Foxy, I think they ought to be allowed to hang what they want outside their own home.

I'm with Mich on this one.

A lot of people say stuff that others think is objectionable, sometimes in very public ways, but we can't control that as long as it isn't directly harming or inciting harm on someone else.

Today I visited my mother's house and her neighbor had a McCain/Palin sign in the yard. They'd marked the 'L' out of Palin and added a 'the' sign in between the names so it read "McCain the Pain". Underneath that they'd added their own sign that said "Bend over America".

I found it extremely offensive. Even my mom (who is voting for Obama) found it incredibly offensive. If they were my neighbors, I might ask them to take it down, but I'd never want a law telling them they couldn't have it. I know it's not exactly hate speech, but I feel like it's a similar situation.

I agree with Jude C. We have laws against murder and assault, and our penalties are plenty stiff for these crimes (at least when the sentences are fully or mostly served!). It makes me positively sick to think that someone would kill another person based on his or her gender, disability or sexual orientation, but murdering anyone for any reason is a crime.

Perhaps special consideration should be given to cases where the "hate" aspect has been proved; to bump up a second degree murder charge to first degree, the hate could be viewed as a form of intent, but I think that this should be done on a state-by-state basis. States are after all responsible for the police power, and courts have to follow the precedent and statutes of their own states.

As far as inciting someone to commit a crime, this is also already illegal...not all speech is free!

Only a few years after Mathew was murdered a very good acquaintance of mine also suffered the same fate. He was befriended by two individuals and when he invited them into his home they murdered him and left him. It wasn't until the odor told neighbors that something was seriously wrong three days later that he was found. The furniture in his apartment was tossed and he had been beat to death. His name was Timothy Gaines he was the comedian he made us laugh and to this day his joyous laugh sings in the memories of my mind.

Although my heart aches for victims such as Tim and Mathew I can not get around the notion that premeditated violence is premeditated violence. The prosecution and punishment of such a crime should be equal across the board regardless of intent. One who attacks me because I am gay should be treated no differently than one who attacks me for any other reason. The violence is the actual crime.

My theory is that the motivation for such a law is awareness but IMO opinion if awareness is the intent there are better ways to do it than write redundant laws with different names. I'm not opposed making the existing laws stronger but again there is no need to write another law to do that.

I am so sorry for your friend hypno. It's truly horrific that there are people like that in this world.

I agree with most of you. killing someone for any reason should be harshly punished.

harmony, looove your avatar!!
I completely agree!

harmony, looove your avatar!!
I completely agree!