Where Are They Now?

It's been a few years since we were introduced to the idea of "Hate Crimes." A new and fairly radical idea of supposed justice, where ones actions in the commission of a crime actually become secondary to their motive. Motive is important when establishing that a person is guilty of a crime, sometimes a jury has trouble believing that a person is guilty if they don't understand why that person might have done it. However, with the introduction of hate crimes laws, we see that a persons motive is influencing far more than the verdict of guilty or not guilty, but the actual sentence received if they are indeed found guilty.

The whole idea is truly absurd. If someone kills another person, they should be punished for that crime, regardless of the motive. Is the person who is killed for their race more valuable than the person who is killed for money? Is the Muslim who is beaten for his religion any more a victim than the Atheist who is beaten at random, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is the crime truly more heinous because the motive in a certain category? Certainly not. But that is what many would have us believe.

First it started with applying the hate crimes laws to who a person is, things such as their race or gender, and what a person believes, things such as religion. Naturally though, they couldn't even leave it at that, they demanded that it be expanded to cover what a person chooses to do, and so they covered homosexuals. This last one to the point that even saying that you believe that Homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime in some places. Still, the point is that by their own definition they want to cover what a person does, so why aren't they trying to protect the AIG execs?

It seems to me that these people are being targeted for where they work, which falls under the category of what they do. Aside from the fact that most, if not all, of the people who were being awarded the bonuses had no part in the failure of their parent company, and had genuinely earned the bonuses that they were being paid, the fact of the matter is that they are being threatened with bodily harm, and even death to themselves and their families because they happen to work at a company where people other than themselves did irresponsible things, and squandered the money that these people had worked so hard to make.

However, even if these were the very people responsible, I think that the expanded hate crimes laws should apply. They are being targeted for what they do, so why haul in all of the people who have threatened them, and all of the people (politicians included) who have incited these feelings of hatred, and charge them with hate crimes, after all, why wait for a crime to be committed, if you're going to punish someone for what they think, instead of what they do, then why not head them off at the pass and lock them all up before they have a chance to hurt anyone. You think I'm joking, but just wait, it won't be long before someone proposes just that, but not for thoughts against just anyone, just against the favored groups of their own choosing.

This brings up one more point though, couldn't this be applied to our very criminal justice system? Couldn't someone say, hey, you protected people from being harassed or harmed for what they do, well, I say you're just arresting and prosecuting me because I'm a murderer and you just hate murderers. Absurd? Yes, but it's the logical conclusion of their own absurd ideas.

Hate crimes laws boil down to just one thing, quelling dissent. That is to say, silencing anyone with a differing point of view, not to protect anyone, not to make society more just, but rather to eliminate freedom of speech, and with it all other freedoms we enjoy.