hate crime legislation?

[jrtom]

This is an entirely serious question, and I'd appreciate some responses.

I don't understand the reason why the category 'hate crime' exists as a legal term. I'm fully in favor of anti-discrimination laws, and I believe that people get beaten up, or worse, for being (say) gay on an unfortunately regular basis.

What I don't understand is why such crimes cannot be effectively addressed under existing statutes. Why does it matter, in law, what reason someone has (or asserts) for beating the mortal crap out of someone else?

I mean, I can understand taking the motivation into account in terms of the kind of sentence that you give--community service for an appropriate support organization or charity might be especially appropriate. But I really don't see why differences in motivation define different crimes.

If anyone here can provide some cogent arguments for why hate crime legislation needs to exist, I'd really like to hear them; I'm prepared to believe that there's something I'm missing.

Comments

Semantic overlap

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I seem to need an additional word here - I need to distinguish between "intent to cause some result with my action," and "intention that made me decide to act." Let's go with "intent" for the former, and "motivation" for the latter ... though those words aren't really an exact fit.

We're not talking about a distinction between accidental and deliberate injury here. Instead we're distinguishing between deliberate injury, and deliberate injury motivated by hatred.

I have no idea how anyone would prove that an action was motivated by some belief or other. I can't even prove to my satisfaction that other human beings are sentient in the same way that I am.