I've been a big fan of yours for years.

As a white man, I do believe in hate crimes laws. Why? Because if, for example, a white person murders a black simply because he's black, as opposed to in the commission of a robbery, then the utter heinousness of the murder and the likely pre-planning are proven.

Without hate crimes laws, an attack on a gay person that results in that person's death could be defended in court as an "accident," or the motivation being robbery, lessening the perp's sentence. Knowing the attack was based on hate makes the fact that it was an intended murder much more provable, and the viciousness of the perp clear for all. Including parole boards. There aren't too many reformed racists and haters. Why let neo-Nazi killers out early when they are more likely (I believe) to re-offend.

Some may think all physical attacks are equal, but the existence of hate crimes laws also tells the public (when people become aware of them) that hate is wrong in the eyes of the law, and that acting upon that hate illegally will cost you even more than just robbing a store to feed your family.

Finally, I disagree with all comments here blaming the existence of hate crimes laws on politicians or Sharpton types doing it for cheap political reasons. These laws were well-intended, even if some may disagree with them for other reasons.

http://boxerdave.dailykos.com/

"Look at Dianes final statement "We should stick to punishing people for what they do — not what we believe they were thinking at the time of the crime."

Freedom of thought/speech is a glorious right. We accept peaceful protests even if it reflects vile hatreds. But when they cross the line into violence, it becomes a crime. Not before that, however.

It seems incongruous, philosophically, if not morally, to prosecute the free thought/speech of hatred because it is attached to a violent crime, when in all other circumstances we demand freedom of thougth/speech.

Philosophically, as well as legally, I find it problematic. If we do not make free thought/speech a crime, now, how is it that we can justify classifying such speech/thought as an enhanced criminal component in connection to a violent crime? It is either free thought/speech or it is not. If true, all sentences given, with an enhancement component based upon free thought/speech, are, I believe, strongly, subject to being overtuned on appeal.

For me (and Diane, I believe), I would hope that judges and juries would enhance sentences by giving more time and more severe sanctions when they find, through the discovery and trial process, that the violent crime was motivated by hatred/prejudice. That is a much better solution, I believe, than both the legal and philosophical problems that would come from making it statutory."

"Hate crimes are worse than the underlying offense because they not only harm the individual victim, they threaten the public peace. Thus they are called out separately and punished more severely."