But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
Hey wait, I object! You killed 247 commies? That's admirable ;)
Excellent point
The legal system isn’t meant to reform. It’s meant to punish. The only reason people consider reform is because leftism has taken over the culture.
If you're saying that reform rather than punishment is a leftist ideal, I'll disagree.
Simultaneously, we used to hang horse thieves and that was a good thing.