|
MrSelfDestruct,
I purposely said "verbally abused" in order to remove any notion of self-defense or fear for her life. It's probably not the best example, but the only reason I gave it was to show that motive, which is the only difference in that case as far as I can see, should be a consideration in determining the harshness of the penalty.
As far as your six examples, I do agree that all 6 should receive equally harsh sentences. However, the reason hate crimes are specifically defined in the law is, as I said before, more for preventative reasons than punitive ones. What's the difference between the examples you listed? It's not that one crime is morally inferior to the other or even that the racists are more likely to commit the crime than the guy who kills a random person on the street.
The difference is that the crimes based on race and political affiliation have widespread social consequences beyond the murder of a single man. To see that, we only need to look back at history, not just here but around the world. When the KKK would lynch a black man, they didn't just do it to hurt a single man, they did it to intimidate the entire black population. And they usually succeeded. That's what's behind hate crime laws and that's why I'm glad they're around.
|