Here's my take on "hate crimes".
IMO, and that of many others, some things are good to hate. Some things are OK to hate, right? For example, I hate alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. MADD hates drunk driving. So if someone commits a crime empassioned by their particular hate, then the question should not be whether the crime was motivated by hate. Rather, the crime should be judged either on the basis of exactly WHAT is hated and whether the hate is legimate (maybe), OR, even better, judged strictly on the heinousness of the crime itself, without regard to the motivation for the crime. Otherwise, many groups are unfairly tainted with the label "hate groups" when members of their group commit crimes motivated by the hatred of the entire group. It is unfair because it is inequitably applied. For example, if the mother of a child killed by a drunk driver retaliates against the driver by shooting and maiming him/her, does that make MADD a "hate group", prone to having members committing such "hate crimes" because MADD "hates" drunk driving? Why not? It's really no different from when a member of so-called "right-wing" or "anti-government" organizations, such a citizen's militias or groups specifically committed to reducing the size of the federal gov't or cutting taxes, commits a crime (wrong, to be sure, to commit any crime) motivated by their hatred of the federal gov't. Is it then fair to label militias or "anti-government" as hate groups? In my opinion, absolutely not. There is no legitimate distinction between them and MADD or PDFA, because just as it's OK to hate drunk driving, so it is OK to "hate" a large federal gov't, because of the many ills of society caused by the beaurocratic monolith (I don't have to tell you what they are). There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating a large central gov't, though we may have different opinions about that. So EVEN if we were to agree as a society that for some reason it's NOT OK to hate someone for their race, color, religion, gayness, etc., and enhance penalties for crimes committed by these groups, we must be very very careful to analyze what the groups/people are hating, and not lump into the "bad" categories legitimated hatreds. It is unfair and flat stupid to say all hate is wrong. I hate alcoholism and drug addiction, and many other things (mosquitoes, taxes, etc.). Yes, we have the traditional categories of minorities which we as a society have decided that it's unfair to discriminate against solely on a particulary basis, because, even when there's good reason to discriminate against the class as a whole, because of the unfairness to the INDIVIDUAL who is the exception to the rule: race, religion, age, sex. And so to to create hate crimes for these categories is perhaps an arguably good thing, but very wrong to allow "mission creep" of this idea to us gunnies, etc. The Southern Poverty Law Center is constantly talking about how it tracks "militias and other hate groups" - HUH?! WTF? OK, yeah, maybe perhaps militias arguably have a common hatred (a large central gov't), but that's a legitimate hatred, unlike a the accepted meaning of "hate group" such as the KKK, who hates people for their race. I am incensed that morons like those at SPLC would group me, as a militia member, into what they call a "hate group". Not to mention that they're part of the militia too, whether they know it or not. Truth be told, given this propensity for unfairness, I think we're much better off completely eliminating the "hate crimes" from the law books, and sticking with what has worked well for hundreds of years - punishing the criminal ACTS themselves, taking into account all atual ACTS of the criminal ACTORS, in addition to the state of mind in terms of intent to harm only, not why the intent to harm is present, in determining the appropriate punishment. ERFN (enough rant for now).
IMO, and that of many others, some things are good to hate. Some things are OK to hate, right? For example, I hate alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. MADD hates drunk driving. So if someone commits a crime empassioned by their particular hate, then the question should not be whether the crime was motivated by hate. Rather, the crime should be judged either on the basis of exactly WHAT is hated and whether the hate is legimate (maybe), OR, even better, judged strictly on the heinousness of the crime itself, without regard to the motivation for the crime. Otherwise, many groups are unfairly tainted with the label "hate groups" when members of their group commit crimes motivated by the hatred of the entire group. It is unfair because it is inequitably applied. For example, if the mother of a child killed by a drunk driver retaliates against the driver by shooting and maiming him/her, does that make MADD a "hate group", prone to having members committing such "hate crimes" because MADD "hates" drunk driving? Why not? It's really no different from when a member of so-called "right-wing" or "anti-government" organizations, such a citizen's militias or groups specifically committed to reducing the size of the federal gov't or cutting taxes, commits a crime (wrong, to be sure, to commit any crime) motivated by their hatred of the federal gov't. Is it then fair to label militias or "anti-government" as hate groups? In my opinion, absolutely not. There is no legitimate distinction between them and MADD or PDFA, because just as it's OK to hate drunk driving, so it is OK to "hate" a large federal gov't, because of the many ills of society caused by the beaurocratic monolith (I don't have to tell you what they are). There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating a large central gov't, though we may have different opinions about that. So EVEN if we were to agree as a society that for some reason it's NOT OK to hate someone for their race, color, religion, gayness, etc., and enhance penalties for crimes committed by these groups, we must be very very careful to analyze what the groups/people are hating, and not lump into the "bad" categories legitimated hatreds. It is unfair and flat stupid to say all hate is wrong. I hate alcoholism and drug addiction, and many other things (mosquitoes, taxes, etc.). Yes, we have the traditional categories of minorities which we as a society have decided that it's unfair to discriminate against solely on a particulary basis, because, even when there's good reason to discriminate against the class as a whole, because of the unfairness to the INDIVIDUAL who is the exception to the rule: race, religion, age, sex. And so to to create hate crimes for these categories is perhaps an arguably good thing, but very wrong to allow "mission creep" of this idea to us gunnies, etc. The Southern Poverty Law Center is constantly talking about how it tracks "militias and other hate groups" - HUH?! WTF? OK, yeah, maybe perhaps militias arguably have a common hatred (a large central gov't), but that's a legitimate hatred, unlike a the accepted meaning of "hate group" such as the KKK, who hates people for their race. I am incensed that morons like those at SPLC would group me, as a militia member, into what they call a "hate group". Not to mention that they're part of the militia too, whether they know it or not. Truth be told, given this propensity for unfairness, I think we're much better off completely eliminating the "hate crimes" from the law books, and sticking with what has worked well for hundreds of years - punishing the criminal ACTS themselves, taking into account all atual ACTS of the criminal ACTORS, in addition to the state of mind in terms of intent to harm only, not why the intent to harm is present, in determining the appropriate punishment. ERFN (enough rant for now).