In Thursday’s Daily, Jeremy Alm wrote a letter arguing against hate crime legislation. According to Alm, “killing is killing, and crime is crime.” I sincerely doubt he really believes this.

Is unintentionally hitting a pedestrian with a car the equivalent of hunting someone down and stabbing him or her to death?

Our judicial system doesn’t treat these acts the same, even without a hate crime statute in effect; one is manslaughter, while the other is murder. A criminal’s motive has always been considered in sentencing, and the hate crime legislation that enhances penalties merely simplifies that process.

In a way it actually protects the criminal, because the hate-based motive needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Laws where only a preponderance of evidence is required have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

However, the focus of the hate crimes presentation was not on penalty enhancement, but on the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. This bill would allow federal officials to assist local police in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

I could be wrong, but I think this bill’s real purpose is to allow the federal government to intercede if it feels that a hate crime is being insufficiently pursued.

And I do believe that there is some merit to such a bill.

Drew Miller

Junior

Computer engineering