Every American should have EQUAL protection under the law against harassment and attack. This hate crime bill sacrifices this by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs. Should a white person be punished more severely for killing a Muslim than for killing a Christian? Should anyone be punished more severely for killing a person with a hearing impairment than a person with normal hearing? Clearly the answer is no. They all deserve equal protection under the law.

The claim that this bill persecutes good Christians for having a belief that homosexuality is wrong is a straw man as it doesn’t address the key issue of this legislation: The right of the federal authorities to have jurisdiction in a hate crime.

Murder is still homicide and assault is still assault no matter what the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the victim is, but now those who perpetrate these crimes are more likely to be brought to the justice that they deserve. Nowhere that I can see does the legislation specify increased prison time or additional sentences based on the victims gender, race, sexual orientation or disability.

The simple fact is that in many parts of the country the mainstream belief is that beating someone up based on their sexual orientation isn’t really a big deal. We certainly don’t need to protect that belief system, and by allowing the federal government to intervene when justice isn’t being served is a good thing and not an indictment of a certain set of beliefs or morals.

Do you have statistics to back up that “simple fact”? When justice isn’t being served, why only step in when it’s a “hate crime”? Laws are established to deter behaviors that infringe upon human rights. It’s not about morals or beliefs, but about human rights. As soon as we judge the person and not the crime, we take the blindfold off of Justice.

That simple fact was pretty well illustrated in recent weeks down in Jena, don’t you think?

No one is being judged differently under this law. This only strengthens the justice system despite what the conservative spin would like us to believe.

It’s nice, but it’s not necessary. At sentencing judges are allowed to look at aggravating circumstances in order to determine the length of the sentence. Aggravating factors have long included biases, the manner in which the crime was committed, and the motivations behind the criminal act. So, if a person attacks another simply because the other is hearing impaired the punishment would be more severe in most courts, because the act is more despicable than it would be otherwise.

By the way Mark, shouldn’t the dividing line on that restroom sign stop above ground level?

Rick’s comment certainly indicates that being judged differently under the law is already commonplace. I don’t care about “spin”; discrimination is always wrong (even if it’s for all the right reasons). Punishment should fit the crime, not the motivation. We have laws to make an example of those who break them, so that it deters others. There are plenty of people out there for whom the promise of punishment is no deterrent. And perhaps this bill is most directed at those people. But there is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against these people. The punishment should still fit the crime.