There is little chance that hate crime legislation will go away anytime soon. In fact,it is far more likely that this legislation will continue to be upheld! If we are uncomfortable with letting a jury ascertain weather or not the "message" was added after the fact for political reasons,then the whole system is questionable.Certain types of crimes have the ability to inflame emotions and divide an entire community.Is rape motivated by hatred for all women? Of course not,many times the motivation is just sex. When you drag a black man behind a speeding pickup truck yelling nigger as you drive down a country road,you are sending a clear message of hate against a group of people.As I stated earlier,for some..the difference is subtle and for others,the difference is crystal clear!

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

Rape is virtually NEVER about sex. It's about power, indimidation and yes, a hatred of women.

The murder of the Black man dragged behind the pickup might be a "step up" from a crime in which the perpetrator yells "nigger" at the victim out of simple anger or personal hatred... but it is still a far cry from an organized, focused effort of violence aimed specifically at terrorizing the entire Black community out of, say, going to school or voting.
Again, I think it was more a demonstration of the perpetrators' personal bigotry.

Be that as it may, yes, you are correct, "hate crime" laws are not going away. And I think our justice system is poorer because of that.

Again, I pose my question.

Did the actual incidence of crimes go up eight percent, or is it simply that:

A: More people are reporting them.
(For example, as the social stigmas against rape victims were swept away, more felt comforatable coming forward to report the crimes. That did not mean there was "more rape" it just meant it wasn't being swept under the rug as much.)

B: The definition of "hate crime" has been expanded to the point that it's becoming essentialy meaningless.

Consider how this might happen:

Crime 1: Jack and John get in a fight over something petty and personal -- like one's dog pooping on the other's lawn. It also happens that Jack is gay. During the course of the fight, John yells, "fag" at Jack and then punches him. John, in fact, might not even be homophobic in the larger sense. It's just that he's really pissed off at Jack, knows that slurs really hurt Jack's feelings.. and therefore is resorting to such tactics in the heat of the moment.

Crime 2: The local chapter of the Aryan Order of Pristine Purity, By Golly throws a brick through the window of the Jack's house -- while he is hosting a meeting to organize support to lobby for gay marriage by encoraging gays and lesbians to vote or otherwise become more invovled in local politics. Jack is struck by the brick, and it has a note tied to it reading: "Faggots, like niggers and Jews, have no place in our All-White, Christian community. Leave, or we'll kill you."

Now, I submit that previously, Crime 1 would not have qualified a "hate crime." But hyper-sensitive, P.C. current standards might dictate that it is.

Therefore, it and Crime 2 get lumped into the same category, thus scewing the statistics and making it seem that more "hate crimes" are taking place.

That did, in fact happen, with some "sex offender" statistics. In some cases, the incident of a 19 year old getting it on with his 16 year old girlfriend got lumped into the same category with the case of the 35 year old Uncle Pervy playing "doctor" with a nine year old.

After all, they both involve an "adult engaging in sexual activity with an under-aged female."

So, on paper, at least.. they might seem like the "same crime." When, in the real-world.. they are vastly different.