We can all agree, that the robbery and beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming was a despicable act. Anyone who doesn't concur with this assessment, is sick and should seek psychological help. Why do lawmakers think that we must tack on the new violation, of " hate crime ", if the victim is from some particular minority group, and the authorities belive that the victim's minority statis was the major cause of the crime? Maybe, they are just itching to legislate and score some political points. Or, are they truely concerned with ridding the country of bigotry?

I don't think that you can legislate bigotry and hate out of our society. In fact, the legislation of special punishments for hate crimes, may actually stir up more bigotry? Special interest hate groups, may see this legislation as a threat to their sick little fantasy worlds of perceived perfection. Bigotry will not be gone from our society, until the imaginary threat of people's " differences ", disappears. This can only be done through education and peer pressure. If the legislators want to do something, they could eliminate affirmative action programs and other laws that seem to favor particular racial or gender based groups, over the majority. A true color blind society, can only emerge from the people themselves, and not from the penal codes!

Why do we need additional hate crime laws? I don't believe that we do. Using Matthew Shepard as an example: Haven't the perpetrators been charged with robbery and murder? Aren't those serious crimes punishable by life in prison or the death penalty ( depending on the state )? What do you want to do; execute them twice? Is it more heinous to attack or kill someone, who is considered a member of a minority group, in that particular locale? Isn't a cross burning on someone's front lawn; arson, tresspassing and vandalism? I believe that a crime is a crime and vigorous prosecution is the answer!

As defined, hate crime laws may have some intrinsic problems.

If an offense against a minority, just because the individual is a member of a particular minority, is the issue; then the prosecution must prove intent ( what the accused was thinking at the time ). Otherwise, any offense against a geographically created minority group, could be construed as a hate crime. A negro being attacked, robbed, or otherwise wronged in a predominately hispanic neighborhood, could be alleged to be a victim of a hate crime. A white victim of a crime, perpetrated in a black neighborhood, could be seen as a victim of a hate crime. These two examples could be one hundred percent true, but what if the actual motivation for the crime was drug related or the victim just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Will prosecutors hurry to find out, if victims of crimes are members of some minority group, in order to tack on the additional " hate crime " count? Once again, I state my belief that vigorous prosecution of the existing laws is the answer, and not creating new laws to be interpretted. Where will the criteria for hate crimes end; age, color, size, shape, religion, nationality, gender, union membership, or political party affiliation? It would just be too easy for any overzealous prosecutor, to create a hate crime, where actually none existed!

Treating every crime against a minority as if it was a hate crime, only serves to advance bigotry, and not qwell it.

The media plays up each and every newly perceived hate crime over the air waves, in a race for sensationalism and ratings. How can we teach our youth not to hate, when they see it every day on the news? Does anyone really think that when a true bigot sees other bigots being put on trial for a hate crime, it is going to make him/her stop hating? I don't think so. If anything, it makes them hate, even more ( or maybe be more careful the next time )!

What of the innocent person person accused of a crime, defined as a hate crime? They will be forever seen as a bigot, even after being found innocent, by a major portion of the people. How about a hispanic who robs a black in a white part of the country, strictly for the money. I don't condone this, but does this possible criminal deserve to be treated like a rascist hate monger or a robber ( whether or not the physical violence was associated with the robbery or the victim's race )? They will still have to pay the price, for their illegal actions. You snatched that purse, because the woman was white, or you robbed that guy because he was wearing a yarmulke ( and was Jewish ), could be the new chants!

Finally, this new hate crimes law, is a Federal law. Do we really want to allow the Federal government to intrude further into state and local prosecutions? I have always believed in the states, and their ability to take care of themselves. The Feds would have to create a catch-all statute that would cover all cases fairly, no matter where and when they occured. I just don't have confidence that this could really happen. Also, I have an aversion to the Federal government poking it's nose into local matters, in general ( do you really favor a herd of Federal officers and the associated media circus descending on your locality, whenever there is the slightest posibility of " hate " being involved in a crime? )!

What if you get a bigot for a prosecutor? Now that is a scary thought!

- Bongo ( Prosecute, prosecute; incarcerate those you hate? )