I think hate-crime legislation is wrong because it puts us in the position of judging people’s moral values. While I believe there are objective moral values that we should all adopt, to judge a person based on what they believe is horrid.

while that may appear to be the end result, i don't think that's the motivation behind hate crime legislation. i tend to think of it as an anti-terrorism measure. certain criminal acts go beyond the boundaries of the immediate victim of the crime, to do lasting psychological damage to a community. whether we're talking about burning an african-american church to the ground, tying up a man and beating him to death for being gay, or flying a plane into the world trade center, these acts of terror have broad impact on a wider community of victims. hate crime legislation attempts to capture that impact and assign it a value.

First, it’s speculative that you can even say with any certainty what a defendant believes.

if the defendent's motivations are not crystal clear, i don't believe hate crime punishments should apply. those motivations, though, are often made very well known through their words and actions before and after the crime.

Second, though I believe in a moral absolute I don’t think we all agree on what it is and so it’d be crazy to try and judge people based on their morals. Instead we can only judge actions (Bitt’s point earlier).

or, i would argue, the intent is to judge the full impact of those actions on society.

Hate-crime legislation is the first step toward prosecution people based on their beliefs instead of their actions.

in the wrong hands, perhaps. i have mixed feelings about how effective hate crime legislation has been, but overall i believe the lawmakers' intentions to be good. a law is a tool, though, and is only as good as the public prosecutor who wields it.

--dan.