Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 11:53 PM, said:
I'm not gonna go on an extended rant about it, but the hate crime nullification thing really bothers me. The main critique against hate crime laws is that they police people's thoughts and beliefs, punishing opinions on top of criminal behavior. If an assault is already illegal, they argue, what does it matter why it was done? Some conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and even liberals believe in that logic. But I'd argue if you believe that crimes can be committed against communities or society -- if you can separate a murder from terrorism, for instance, because the implication reaches further than the direct victims -- then hate crime laws make the same sense for basically the same reasons. There's a direct victimization component and a broader threat component, and both do actual real world damage. The threat is more than an opinion just as an assault is more than an opinion, and threats aren't protected speech even in the US (I know some countries actually have hate speech laws, which I wouldn't call for). I think most people see that reasoning though -- and only 5 out of 50 states don't have hate crime laws, but Georgia is the only one that has had them and had them overturned by a state court. There are federal hate crime laws though and I hope this makes it to that level.
It's also really daft an argument because
intent is at the heart of pretty much all sentencing laws. Manslaughter or murder. Attempted robbery or breaking and entering. Criminal negligence or intentional harm. And so on and so forth.