Recently, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, H.R. 1592. The Bill now awaits action in the Senate. If it becomes law, it would replace the existing laws punishing doers of the underlying crimes.
The Bill widens the scope of the existing federal hate-crime law by including crime motivated by a victim's sexual orientation. It also provides federal help to local and state law enforcement agencies to prevent and act against hate crimes.
However, under the Bill, it would no more be "equal justice for all." It would also mean different penalties for the same crime depending on the category of the victim. A criminal will be punished more severely for killing a person from the specified segment than the one who kills any other not belonging to this "protected" category. By awarding special status on certain groups, HR 1592 scorns the principle of equality before the law.
Hate-crime laws have been around for over a decade — only seven states haven't passed them — and yet there is no evidence suggesting reduction in the occurrence of bias-motivated crime.
Hate-crime legislation has certain merits, but it also poses questions. First, it judges a crime on the basis of the motivation. Isn’t it too complex to assess the mental state of a criminal? Secondly, it questions distribution of responsibility between the state and national governments.
In my view, the new hate-crime legislation typifies moral exhibitionism. The more categories will make matters more complicated. Ideally, law should not discriminate criminals on different pretexts. In law, what matters most is the act, not the beliefs.
Make Judged My Homepage
