Editor:
I have a question that always comes up when I read anything regarding hate crime legislation. Why does a hate crime need special legislation? In this country, we have the First Amendment that says we can say and think whatever we want, it is what we do that we can end up in court for.
Some hate crimes are murder; we already have laws and prescribed punishments for murder. I know many will argue that hate crimes are different since there is an attempt by the perpetrator to intimidate and belittle the victim. I think all victims feel intimidated and belittled no matter why someone has done something against them.
Additionally, are there crimes out there that fall under the umbrella of hate crimes but are not counted as a hate crime? For instance, rape. From the literature I have read, most people who rape don’t do it for a need to release pent-up sexuality, but to exert power over someone else. Is the crime any less heinous if both rapist and victim are of the same ethnicity and attend the same church?
Rape is a terrible crime, so is murder, so is assault. In January, one of my friends from India was assaulted and ended up in the hospital. The idiots who did it probably were racists, and I hope the full strength of the law will be used against them. But if they had assaulted someone else, should they receive a lighter sentence because of a lighter skin pigmentation?
My point is, a crime is a vicious act and should be punished accordingly, and motive should definitely be considered. However, don’t we already have laws to punish those who commit crimes?
Rebecca Walker, Junior, Chinese