No, you've got it wrong. 1st degree murder is distinguished from lesser charges by its premeditation, not by motive. To quote FindLaw:
"In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."
BTW, Mme, motive does play a role in criminal law, but motive itself is not a crime (nor should it ever be, your keenness for punishing thought-crime notwithstanding) and cannot by itself establish guilt. First, motive goes to intent. That is, finding motive helps to show criminal intent, proof of which is generally required for conviction for criminal acts. Motive is not, however, necessary for conviction and is irrelevant if guilt can be established without it. Second, motive can help establish guilt in a prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence. But still, the crime is the act, not the motive for it.
As for the current hate crimes bill, the equal protection issue comes down to whether, as applied, the law sets greater punishment based on the protected status of the victim or is applied equally regardless of the victim's (or perpetrator's) social classification, with the greater punishment based on objectively provable motives as in the Wisconsin case cited.
I suspect many proponents of the bill (including you, based on your words here) intend the former, not the latter. |
