I saw the headline in my local newspaper this morning. The FBI has revealed that hate crimes rose by almost 8% in 2006, with nearly 8000 bias motivated crimes occurring that year. In response the usual suspects whined their usual tune about America's poor, victimized minorities. But considering there are 300 million people of every race in this country, having less than 8000 bigotry based assaults on either people or property is shining proof of America's great progress toward equality for all. Don't expect the race hustlers to admit that, though.
I oppose the very notion of "hate crimes". Hate crime laws are an attempt to punish people for what they (alledgely) think, not for what they do. They're Orwellian to the core. How do you know what someone was thinking at the moment of the crime? If perp and victim are of different races you could assume racism. But the victim could've just been the easiest target at the moment. And even if a perp deliberately targets a particular group of people it doesn't automatically mean he's acting out of hate. The group might just pose less of a threat to him. He might target illegal aliens, for instance, because they're less likely to call the police and NOT because they're illegal aliens. He might target the elderly because they can offer less physical resistance, NOT because he's got it in for old folks. We need to be VERY careful when we start criminalizing people's thoughts.
Another big problem with hate crime laws is the tougher sentences mandated for hate crimes. I've never understood how being mugged, raped, or murdered is worse when the criminal is a different race, gender, or sexual orientation from the victim. Even if a perp acts out of hate the victim is traumatized by the crime itself, not the thoughts behind it. A rape victim isn't comforted by knowing that she wasn't attacked because she was Black. However, a rape victim might be further traumatized by knowing that her attacker received a lesser sentence because he was an "ordinary" rapist rather than a hate rapist. And then there's murder.
Proponents of hate crime laws and the tougher sentences mandated by them are often the same people who oppose the death penalty. This is highly problematic. How can they insist that hate crimes be punished more severly than "ordinary" crimes yet oppose the severest punishment possible for hate murders? After all, the only way to punish hate murders more severly than "ordinary" murders is to give the death penalty for one and life without parole for the other. Death penalty opponents, naturally, won't support that. The only alternative is to give hate murderers life without parole but "ordinary" murderers less than that. The families of "ordinary" murder victims would NEVER stand for such a diminishing of their loved ones' lives. Life without parole is the lightest sentence for murder, any murder, that most people will accept. So the end result will be that hate murderers and "ordinary" murderers receive the same sentence. How illogical is that?
But hate crimes laws are inherently illogical. I believe they were never meant to protect minorities. Rather, their purpose is to make guilt ridden, self-hating, left-wing Whites feel good about themselves. By championing these laws (and a lot of other things) such Whites seek to separate themselves from and atone for what they see as the entirely criminal nature of their race's interaction with non-Whites. They're trying to tell the non-White world, "Whites have horribly oppressed you but I'm a different kind of White person. I'm really good. Look at what I'm doing for you." If liberal Whites want to assuage their unearned guilt then they should do so, but not at the expense of justice and common sense. A criminal act should get the same punishment regardless of the motive for it. No victim is worth more than another. Isn't that what equality really means?