>Something about hate crime legislation seems shady to me... I'm >not sure what it is, but there's SOMETHING.
>I guess it's because you begin to probe the intent of the >accused, and punish him based on what he was thinking. That >seems a bit off to me.

if there are witnesses that can contend that an individual would do such a crime simply because of race/gender/sex. orient./whatever, then why not?

>For instance, on the mtv thing, they had several occasions >where the crime was against a minority or a gay person, but >there was no indication that it was due to their race or sexual >orientation. To me, hate crimes legislation is heading into >dangerous territory - when the government starts to try and >figure out what people are thinking, and judge them on their >thoughts. The crime, to me, should be enough on its own...

what do you think about anti-gay graffiti, for instance? out in one of those midwest states (wyoming, maybe?) there was a billboard that that read "shoot a day or two" referring to a shooting range. the sign was defaced to read "shoot a gay or two." the billboard remained for nearly a month, when finally a nearby resident fixed it because the police did nothing. do you think that should be considered merely defacing property? i don't.

thejester.