Quote Originally Posted by will641
here is a list of points against hate crime laws courtesy wikipedia. say what you want about wikipedia, most of the time they are pretty good.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
* Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
* It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
* Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
* Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier, was that all these efforts to make the world a less racist one, really have a reverse effect. What most liberals and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, make everything racial. IMO, they just as racist as any other person, except they don't commit violent crimes.

Political correctness is the worst thing ever!
That list was obviously not written by anyone with any sort of legal training. Anyone who has taken an intro course to criminal law can shred that to pieces.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
Of course they should.
1) A man's child is raped. He kills the rapist with a 9mm pistol to the head.
2) A gay man is jumped outside of a bar, beaten to death.

Clearly these crimes should be treated differently, not just because of the motives for the murder, but because of the future dangerousness of the offender. A man who kills his child's rapist is not considered anywhere near as big of a future threat to society as a man who randomly kills a gay man outside of a bar. Hence, they will receive different sentences.

* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
This is just horseshit. Technically, its the commision of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy. It's basically saying "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
This is a repitition of #1 in different wording, and applied to vandalism and assault. So lets look at vandalism. Spraypainting "FAG" on a persons house and spraypainting "CRIPS4LYFE" are inherently different things. If you don't see this, I don't think you can be helped.

Further, words intended to provoke fights or retaliation are NOT protected by the first amendment to the constitution.

It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
How, exactly, do hate-crime laws bring the law into disrepute? This isn't even logical, nor is there any evidence brought forth to back the statement up, besides "groups will apply to have their critics silenced" which is further a nonsensical statement. Apply to who? For a permit? What?

Also an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
More slippery slope bull, and I dont even see how this has to do with hate crime statutes. What exactly do religious practices have to do with anything? Further still, how are they being regulated by the government?

Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.
And for our grand finale, the victim doesnt decide if a hate crime occured or if a person is going to be charged with a hate crime. That is up to the prosecutor, and is decided upon by the jury. The victim (and I like the verbiage included of "self-declared victim" like I mean come on, minorities are always lying) has nothing to do with it.