Well, it's certainly a complex issue. I hear where you're coming from - a life is a life is a life. I guess there are two points I'd like to make:
1) the person who is killed is not the only victim. Given the case where a looney toon shoots into a crowd of (members of group) coming out of place where (group members) stereotypically meet, the victims are all of the members of the group. No, they're not victims of murder. They're victims of terror. Their "civil rights" if you will, are being violated because they no longer feel comfortable meeting (or walking on the street, or riding the bus, or whereever the murder took place).
2) the concept of aggravating circumstances. If our looney toon drives into a crowd and kills a few people, is the charge first degree murder, or vehicular homicide? How could it be ruled first degree murder if the perp wasn't aiming at a particular person? What if it could be shown that the perp was aiming for a particular type of person? In this case, a strong "hate crimes" law lets the DA prosecute a more serious crime.
Come on, you know that murderers are walking after serving 3 or 4 years! In an ideal world, we'd either execute them immediately, or banish them somewhere. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this ain't the ideal world. Anything that legitimately increases the penalty for murder (or any violent crime) is a good thing.
[This message has been edited by Ewok (edited July 07, 1999).]
1) the person who is killed is not the only victim. Given the case where a looney toon shoots into a crowd of (members of group) coming out of place where (group members) stereotypically meet, the victims are all of the members of the group. No, they're not victims of murder. They're victims of terror. Their "civil rights" if you will, are being violated because they no longer feel comfortable meeting (or walking on the street, or riding the bus, or whereever the murder took place).
2) the concept of aggravating circumstances. If our looney toon drives into a crowd and kills a few people, is the charge first degree murder, or vehicular homicide? How could it be ruled first degree murder if the perp wasn't aiming at a particular person? What if it could be shown that the perp was aiming for a particular type of person? In this case, a strong "hate crimes" law lets the DA prosecute a more serious crime.
Come on, you know that murderers are walking after serving 3 or 4 years! In an ideal world, we'd either execute them immediately, or banish them somewhere. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this ain't the ideal world. Anything that legitimately increases the penalty for murder (or any violent crime) is a good thing.
[This message has been edited by Ewok (edited July 07, 1999).]