From a logical view point, a “hate” crime is no different than a “plain” crime. After all, the person perpetrating a crime has little to no regard for the value or respect of victim, right?
Who can substantiate what constitutes “hate”? Our legislators want to make themselves and others feel better about crimes against certain persons or special groups (such as gays, transvestites, people of color, Jews, etc.) so they can make themselves and some people feel better about being protected.
But I say that hate crime laws are discriminating and show prejudice that should not be tolerated. Whatever “class” of people the law includes, there is at least one class of people it excludes.
For example, couldn’t an atheist committing a crime against someone who believes in a religion be committing a hate crime?
If Bernie Madoff were victimized by one of his investors, would that be a crime of hate? If so, then why aren’t crimes against portfolio managers hate crimes?
I could go and on and on with examples of who else should be considered to be on the list, but that would be folly. What I am trying to say is that all crimes have hate as part of the motive.
There are already laws with penalties for all of the hate crimes, so the legislators should stop wasting time and tax dollars, and focus on important business of the people, such as the balancing budget.
Timothy C. Tiches