[Jenn]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn wrote:
In article


But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

But hate crimes are not really based on hate, they are based on
only on attitudes towards race, gender preference and religion.

No, one can have any attitude they wish to have!

I may hate my neighbor for various other reasons, and it would
not be classified as a hate crime.

Correct. And one can hate anyone for ANY reason and it's not a hate
crime.

The better way is to charge two
separate crimes, the crime itself, and an additional charge for civil
rights
violations.

Perhaps so. That's what happens in many places.

I am in favor of criminalizing civil rights violations.
Bit call things want they are, and prove the civil
rights violation in court.

You have to do that with hate crimes as well. The goal of intimidation,
etc has to be proved. There are many times where the perp is found
guilty of the crime, but does not receive the enhanced penalty.

See, I am also in
favor of protecting the civil liberties
of those accused .

As am I, of course.

We have a hate crimes case in our sleep little community right now. Or
to be more precise, it MAY be a hate crime. Some churches have been
vandalized, and the DA is saying that when they catch the perp, hate
crime laws MAY apply.