Has anyone sued to stop hate-crime legislation based on the premise that it gives unequal protection?

Ummmm. Have you ever considered the fact that a "hate crime" murder wouldn't have occurred in the first place unless there was a hate crime violation? Why do you object to people being conviced of hate crimes when they are guilty of that? Are you soft on crime? Do you want other criminals to go free or just hate crime criminals?Has anyone sued to stop hate-crime legislation based on the premise that it gives unequal protection?You do not sue to stop any legislation. Who would you sue? You organize opposition to the legislation and lobby the members of the legislature or Congress.



If the law is passed, you defend someone who is charged under that law to have a court rule it to be unconstitutional.



Additionally, I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of hate crimes legislation. A person is more dangerous to society if he assaults persons because of their gender or age or race, etc., than is the guy who assaults someone for a robbery or out of jealousy.



We have always taken "thoughts/motivation" into account in prosecution. That is why there is a difference between manslaughter and murder, for instance.Has anyone sued to stop hate-crime legislation based on the premise that it gives unequal protection?I don't think so. It's a pretty dangerous world out there and if penalty's for thuggery of any kind can be increased I say "Why not?".



IMHO the punishment should fit the crime...I'm talking Biblical justice

kasich

ski doo