Hate Crime Legislation - Do we need this?

Seems like the libs think we need more hate crime legislation. I'm not sure precisely what's driving it this time. There seems to be a penchant for this every so often. Now however there does seem to be an organized opposition to it, and it may actually receive a veto, which I think is appropriate.

I think that part of this stems from the leniency that has been shown in the past for criminals. The phrase "the crows coming home to roost" springs to mind.

I certainly agree that the types of incidents we saw before the civil rights movement should not have happened. For too long juries tended to not convict those similar to them when they committed crimes against the different. This injustice does still happen and is what must be prevented. Frequently people point to the Matthew Sheppard incident as reasons why we need hate crime legislation. My point is that it is quite illegal and criminal to tie someone to a fence and beat them to death. The lame gay panic excuse attempted by his assailants was just that - lame. They belong in jail, and thankfully they are there. My point is simple - convict criminals for their acts! Here are my comments from almost precisely 7 years ago, when someone blew a gasket and killed a bunch of people back in Pittsburgh.

All crime is hateful

I found the dissertation by Steven D. Irwin and Joel Ratner of the Anti-Defamation League on the topic of hate crimes interesting ("Getting Tough on Hate Crimes," May 7). They seem to indicate that they would prefer that a person's thoughts while committing a crime be taken into account; that we should increase the punishment for such heinous crimes based on a person's race, religion or ethnicity; and we should expand state laws to encompass "all other categories of hate crimes."

This is, of course, in response to renewed violence on the part of one Richard Baumhammers. I ask Messrs. Irwin and Ratner this: Is it not sufficient that five human beings were killed? Or three, as in the case of Ronald Taylor in March? Should not such violent killers be locked up for the rest of their natural life, regardless of their victims' race?

I ask those who would rush to enact so-called hate crime legislation: Does it matter that those killed in these events where chosen based on race, religion or other such criteria? Would it somehow be more acceptable had they killed people completely at random? Or might it be better still if those no longer with us were similar in ethnicity to the shooters?

Let us focus on the crimes actually committed: The punishment for these acts should be swift and sure lest others decide to continue this onslaught on decency.