I see both sides of the hate crime debate. Sure, for the victim and their loved ones, a crime of violence is the same no matter what the motivation.
But for the larger community routinely targeted by violence, or a community of criminals prone to serial acts of violence - enhanced punishments are, imo, justified as a deterrent - - even though I think deterrents like that rarely deter.
Hate crimes are, in addition, a form of terrorism that impacts with fear the larger targeted community just as it impacts the actual victim with physical harm or death. When your target is more than just your victim, the punishment should be more than just that for the assault on the victim.
When James Byrd was dragged to his death behind a car, the purpose of that crime was to strike fear in the hearts of all black men. When Matthew Shepard was left beaten on a fencepost to die, it was because he was gay -- not because he was Matthew Shepard ... and therefore likely struck fear into the hearts of countless homosexuals.
These are the single victims for whom the Hate Crimes legislation was named. They were not the only victims of their respective crimes. More victims, more punishment.
So Sayeth I.
