[mikesears]

What you say is true, of course. But dig deeper with me.

Professors are attacked because....
White people are attacked because....
Thieves are attacked because....
Women are attacked because....

Isn't it plain that in the United States we have certain people who are targeted SIMPLY because they belong to a HIGH-PROFILE group?

When we begin to place more significance on one sector of society simply for the role they play or who they are, we devalue the rest of the members of society.

If I am attacked as a referee for a call that went against the home team, or if I am attacked because I am white, or if I am attacked because I drive a nice car (I don't, really!!) or because of the way I look, I want the punishment to be the same. Not to be terribly sarcastic, but I can hear it now:

Judge: The sentence is 6 months probation.

Me: But your honor, I was attacked because he thought I was ugly.

Judge: If he'd attacked you as a referee, I could have given him 5 years behind bars, but ugliness not covered under current hate crimes.




A white skin head in Jewish sections of Brooklyn is attacked because....
A black "gangsta" is attacked in Jasper, Texas, because....
A football official is attacked after a game where his call went against the home team because....

Or, look at it this way:

In general: Professors, white people, thieves, drunks, teachers, nerds, etc., are not HATED because they belong to those categories. That is, an INDIVIDUAL drunk may be hated (because he killed people in an accident), but he is not hated as a DRUNK but as a specific kind of drunk.

Sports official are often hated because they are simply sports officials.

Surely we can agree that some folks draw hard lines around ethic and racial lines.

There are a number of hard lines people draw. Yes, some are more high-profile than others but that is an issue for society and not legislatation. We already have laws that deal with assault. Just because I wear a referee's uniform doesn't make my work as an official any more valuable than the boss who must reprimand an employee.

But it's not always the case.

Example: Joe Childress, a black teacher, is attacked in a white neighborhood. It MIGHT be a simply mugging. It MIGHT be a hate crime. Let's determine which. If it's a simply mugging, punish for that. If it's a hate crime, punish more harshly, for that is the way to begin to add protection to everyone who ON THE SURFACE belongs to that group.

Know'm sayin'?

You present a good point, and you may have swayed me a little in this respect. If a crime is commited simply because of hatred, then I may agree that the punishment should be more severe. However, I would hate to begin to put more value on certain groups of people by specifically naming groups. Yet, I've always thought that intent was part of the equation when a judge imposes a sentence.

Who knows but we may need to agree to disagree on this subject.