"Casey"  wrote in message
news:CtQRd.11517$NN.3439{at}edtnps89...
> I am also uncomfortable with the concept of a "hate crime". Why would
> Samuel Goldstein, assaulted for his money by the "skin head"
John Smith,
> be considered any less of a victim and any less deserving of having
> legal sanction progressed against his assailant than the Jew Samuel
> Goldstein, assaulted by the "skin head" John Smith because
he is Jewish ?
> There is a frightening reverse implication here...that otherwise
> identical crimes are somehow less serious than the same crime inspired
> by "hate" and that the "cold blooded" crime
deserves a lesser penalty...
>
> ...Ken
>
> J wrote:
>
> > I agree that date rape would be hard to classify as a hate crime

Because "date rape" doesn't exist.


.. Any
> > prosecutor could try a number of crimes as hate crimes, but the issue
> > of what constitutes "hate" is raised. Is hate to be
defined by the
> > prosecutor? I believe that rapists should be harshly dealt with by the
> > law

Harshly? Even when most of these cases are ambiguous.



, but "hate" crime legislation seems to cheapen the other degrees
> > that have already been established in the courts.
"Hate" crime just
> > seems to be too arbitrary a term to actually consistute a whole new
> > class of crimes.

We don't need hate crime laws because we already have laws that punish
conspiracy as if there were an organisation where the members wanted to kill
white people. But when an indidual commits a crime we can never know what
was in her mind so it's irrelevant.




 I think the people behind these laws mean well,

Why do you assume that the government means well?



 but it
> > just does not make sense to me personally.
> >
> > J
> >
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/19/05 9:24:48 PM ---