Mike the Usurper wrote:

One of them is a function of personal interaction and if someone is a ass, then what happens, while probably not appropriate, is a function of who they are and how they act. The second is a mob response and should have a stronger response. Had Mattew Sheppard been killed because he was an asshole, then it falls into the same category as any other random fight in a bar. He wasn't. He was killed because he was gay and the rednecks with small dicks were so scared he might be checking out their asses, they beat him, broke his skull, then tied him to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to die.

Some people might consider people who sing karaoke to be asses. Do karaoke folks deserve to get beat more than a gay person? If you're stabbed in a mugging and they catch the culprit, should how much time the assailant gets depend on whether or not you are gay? Should bullies in small towns avoid beating gays because the government thinks it would be better if they beat up nerds or whatever unlucky bastard who happens to pass by next? What about wife beaters? Street gangs? It's more ok to kill and beat people who aren't privileged enough to be on a list.

Intolerance of many kinds leads to violence. I do not feel race, religion, sexuality or stupidity entitles someone for "extra special" justice. I think injustice will probably increase intolerance and hate of those the system pretends to protect. The main pitch FOR this type of law is "Do you think hate crimes need to stop?" And of course most people say SURE! This sales pitch is about the same fallacy the Christian "Pro-Life" label. If you asked people if they thought VIOLENCE should stop... chances are that they'd agree. I think the sentence should be balanced by the severity of the crime and the situation. Grisly deaths and violence happen frequently. Should someone do less time for not killing a gay person because they felt like killing your Mom?

RE: Pass the Matthew Shepard Act...