The OP brings up a good point. Since when does a person's motivation for a crime justify the act being a new and more heinous crime? Shouldn't the act itself be judged?
One line of reasoning is that a hate crime is something actually done against a whole group - not just one person, and is therefore more serious because of the potential for inspiring future harm.
I understand this, but then we are creating a new category of crime to deter others from targeting that same "group". Which groups get this protection? If a criminal hates a person, is this less of a crime than hating a group? Does extra punishment for hating a group actually stop hatred of that group?
I haven't made up my own mind, but it is something that almost never gets debated. It has been a point of faith for decades that hate crimes require extra punishment.
One line of reasoning is that a hate crime is something actually done against a whole group - not just one person, and is therefore more serious because of the potential for inspiring future harm.
I understand this, but then we are creating a new category of crime to deter others from targeting that same "group". Which groups get this protection? If a criminal hates a person, is this less of a crime than hating a group? Does extra punishment for hating a group actually stop hatred of that group?
I haven't made up my own mind, but it is something that almost never gets debated. It has been a point of faith for decades that hate crimes require extra punishment.
