The folly of hate crimes legislation
More proof :
Three women identified by their lawyers as lesbians were arraigned yesterday on a hate crime charge for allegedly beating a gay man at the Forest Hills T station in an unusual case that experts say exposes the law’s flawed logic.
“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.” …
She said the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was “motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation” since the three women “called him insulting homophobic slurs.”
But attorney Helene Tomlinson, who represented Sanford, told the judge her client is “openly identified as a lesbian … so any homophobic (conduct) is unwarranted.” She said the alleged victim was the aggressor and used racial slurs: “He provoked them.”
What if they had been bi?
(via Andrew Sullivan)
Categories
Motive is not an element of any crime. In a murder case the prosecution never has to prove WHY the defendant killed someone, and the judge instructs the jury that evidence of motive is not required.
Hate crimes legislation tosses this valuable concept aside, and seeks to punish certain crimes more severely than others depending on the offender’s motive for committing the crime, based on au courant notions of political correctness. In sum, hate crime laws violate equal protection of the law.