>>Obiviously not every crime against one of these newly protected classes is a hate crime, even assault, but now the court must probe the depths to determine the level/degree of hate in every case. This is going to be applied poorly over time I feel - with various outcomes. No good deed goes unpunished I suspect and we'll rue the day the ACLU uses this to protect a pediphile.<<
DB -
You are correct that not every crime against one of the groups specified would be considered a hate crime. The fact that the victim might be gay, black, or whatever, is not the main issue, nor what defines a hate crime. Thus, the gay man lying in the hospital bed next to another assault victim would not be able to truthfully say that his assailant was punished more severely because he himself was gay.
As for that last sentence, I'm appalled, and not just at your spelling.
If some pedophile who also happens to be a homosexual is targeted and attacked because he's homosexual, then that would be, as defined under these laws, a hate crime. And so what? If he's attacked because he's a pedophile, then it wouldn't be a hate crime.
You are certainly correct that this will make the job of the courts more difficult in some instances, because they will have a new class of crime, with its own set of rules to adjudicate. However, not being able to prove that a particular assault is a hate crime won't make prosecuting the actual assault any more difficult, as undoubtedly it will be charged as a separate count.
- Allen |
