No reason to object to prosecutor's having increased power if it is justifiable. Deciding there can be an additional element to killing aside from the act itself is not something hates crimes have a monopoly on. Manslaughter and all the degrees of murder derive from the understanding that more than just the isolated outcome is important, that the intent and strategy of the killer matters as well.
I'm not arguing that it's not possible to consider other factors, I'm arguing that this is bad policy. Furthermore, the analogy between the other types of crime and this one doesn't work that well. In the context of murder v. manslaughter, the question of whether it qualifies as one or the other is a relatively straightforward question that can generally be determined from context. There isn't really a risk of prosecutorial abuse or charging disparity - you're not going to get convicted of murder if you accidentally drop a gun and it goes off, just like you'll probably be charged with murder if you plan a crime out and shoot someone in the face.
In contrast, the question of whether a crime qualifies as a hate crime is far less concrete. Look at the examples cited above.
Which of these do you think are hate crimes?:
1) Guy uses a gay chatroom to find someone to rob because he thinks gay people will be easy to lure to the place of robbery and to overpower
2) Guy robs a woman because women are less likely to fight back than men
3) Guy robs an old person because old people are less likely to fight back
4) Guy rapes a woman because he wants to rape a woman, not a man
Every one of these people falls within the meaning of the hate crime statute. As a result, it gives prosecutors almost unlimited leeway to use that additional leverage to force people to plea to more serious charges, whether or not they actually committed what you or I would consider a "hate crime."
Capital punishment is constitutionally vague and it is a more serious matter, since it giving the state the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.
How is capital punishment constitutionally vague? Death penalty statutes are generally some of the most explicitly defined statutes on the books.
You'll have to elaborate on the last reason.
(Point of clarification: This federal legislation does not provide for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences [except for one small exception which isn't relevant here]. When I raised my objections to the use of mandatory minimums in hate crime laws, I meant to refer to the many state hate crime laws which include minimums.)
Mandatory minimum sentences have been an abject failure and we're moving toward eliminating them. We should continue down this path. This is a step in the wrong direction.
Provided the person genuinely intended to terrify an entire community into submission through his aggression against a single person, and especially if this is obvious from his demeanor and cues left the crime scene and elsewhere, there is no reason why he shouldn't be judged for the harm he did or attempted to do to that community as well as to the single individual. It was his plan, not anybody else's.
The point is that the statute doesn't limit the charges to situations like this. It's far too sweeping.
Not every state has minimum sentencing for certain crimes. You're correct, it doesn't ensure that someone is charged or convicted, but it does ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing, usually. This prevents systemic bias based on homophobia, and I think it's proper, at least for now. I adamantly believe that victims who are minorities still require protection in the justice system.
Again, to clarify, this law will only apply in cases that are brought by federal prosecutors in federal court. If you think that hate crimes are being pursued less vigorously than crime committed against white people, you need to back this up.
Furthermore, as noted above,
the federal hate crime law does not include a mandatory minimum, so I don't see how it will "ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing." The sentencing guidelines provide for a 3 level increase, which is minimal.
Even though it doesn't guarantee a charge, a hate crime garners more attention from the police by virtue of the law alone. It compels authority to not ignore cases where the victim is a minority, which does still happen no matter what people choose to believe.
No but it spreads awareness and compels them to act in most cases.
Again, this law does not compel
anyone to do
anything, especially the police. All this law does is offer prosecutors the
option to add a more serious charge in cases of "hate crimes." If you're worried about police officers ignoring these crimes, you should know that this law will absolutely not address that in any way, shape or form.
Also, I subscribe to the idea that crimes motivated by hate of a group disempowers the whole group that the victim is part of. It is more damaging to a group that is still trying to fight for equality. I'm not even American, and the tale of Matthew Shepard affected me.
The fact that something is bad doesn't mean that the solution is to pass overbroad and ill-defined laws criminalizing a wide range of behavior.
It sets a standard for criminals to think twice before they attack someone based on their sexual orientation, race, etc... and yes, I include white people in this, because there is racial crime against them too.
Do you actually think that this is how it will work?
"Hey, Tony, you want to go out and beat some black guys with a pipe?"
"Nah man, I would have done it last week because we would have probably only been charged with assault/attempted murder/etc. in state court and spend 7-11 years in prison, but they passed this new hate crime law. Now we might get charged in federal court and spend 8-12 years in prison."
"Damn bro, I didn't know that. Good point. Let's just stay home and watch the Jets."
I agree, but for all its flaws, I think it is a positive step for a society which is in transition. Justice is rarely perfect, hate crime or not. It helps minority groups to feel more secure in who they are and their struggle for equality.
So would a law providing for the death penalty for racism, but that wouldn't be a good law either.
If Federal judges are more astute then they'll be able to determine more readily what is and isn't a hate crime.
It's not up to the judges. It's the AUSA who decides what charges to bring and the jury who decides whether to convict. Furthermore, in the 90% of federal criminal prosecutions that plea before trial, the judge will have very limited input.