One of the stupid things we do when applying the law, is to attempt to read minds.
Motivation is certainly a part of the considerations when determining guilt in circumstantial considerations, but applying a specific penalty to those motives? Nolan Finley gets it right this time:
“It just doesn’t matter. No one should ever be charged with a hate crime.
For one thing, layering on the hate crime charge creates unequal classes of victims.
If you get murdered by a junkie who wants your wallet, or a jealous husband, or a maniac on a killing spree, you’re just as dead as someone who gets offed by a racist.”
And frankly if the punishment ought to be increased under the suspicion that the perpetrator(s) were doing a ‘hate crime’, then it ought to apply always.
Hey, better late than never.
Ironically, who is the big-time editor who should know the pulse of the city as part of his job and who is the truck driver that spends less time in town than he does out?
Oh c'mon now, how the Hell can the Progressives have things like Hate Speech™ for agendas such as Ghey "marriage" if y'all do away with charges of a Hate Crime™? Preposterous!
Besides, Ms. Worthy did a rather excellent job feathering her resume with handling the next Nathanial Abraham that'll be absolved of his sins upon reaching Age of Majority while soothing planners in the exurbs with profiteering non-bailout bailout agenda in the Peoples Republic of Liberia West.