Judge Richard Roberts’s Troubling Confusion | National Review Online:
I find the very idea of a "hate crime" to be an abomination. Either it is a crime or not. I certainly understand degrees of murder based on "intent", and the difficulty of determining that in some cases ... was it or was it not pre-meditated, was it REALLY accidental, etc, but given the human condition, we need to do our best with those things.
But hate? Effectively it turns out to be an extra penalty that can be selectively hauled out and used against certain people in certain cases. It is open discrimination at it's worst codified in law. Was the victim white? Well, then it can't be a "hate crime" ... unless they were gay.
So a guy goes into an organization with the admitted intent of killing as many supposed "anti-gay people" as possible and shoving Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in their mouths and is stopped.
Nobody even hints that it may be a "hate crime" -- the intended victims were in favor of the many thousand year old rule that marriage was a relationship between men and women, so, the fact that one would want to kill them has nothing to do with "hate".
In fact, they have no right to hold that position -- it makes THEM "haters".
The judge can side in with the views of the criminal in this case, shorten sentencing, and other than a very few right wing nut-jobs like me, nobody cares.
Wanna bet what would happen if the guy had wanted to kill blacks or gays and a judge had acted similarly what kind of media storm would ensue??
Do we STILL not understand what the path was to Germany eventually killing millions of Jews and nearly the whole population just looking away??
'via Blog this'