Hate-crimes bill is debated (Utah Repub Sen. sees the light, sort of)

[Sapphocrat]

In short, Utah state legislator came to office (filling in for a dead man -- does that sound a bit familiar?) thinking that hate-crime lesgislation in Utah was unnecessary.

Now it appears he's thought better of it -- but his alternative to eliminating hate-crimes law altogether is simply to eliminate the "classes" of people it would cover:

(Sen. James Evans') bill virtually mirrors (Democratic Rep. David Litvack's) amended legislation from last year, with one exception: It eliminates the commonly accepted list of groups protected by U.S. antidiscrimination statutes -- race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and age among them.

Instead, under Evans' proposal, prosecutors would determine if a defendant acted with "bias or prejudice" when committing a crime before filing charges. "Mere abstract beliefs," membership in an organization, or the defendant's "expressions or associations" alone would not be enough to be charged with a hate crime.

Evans, a black businessman who represents the most diverse senate district in the state ... maintains his bill is more fair than previous versions that included a list. And, he says, it's easier to enforce. "It's a philosophical difference," Evans said. "If we're going to have a hate-crimes bill, it ought to focus on the motive. "Lists are exclusionary. They're inherently discriminatory, giving special protections to some at the expense of others. We ought to be fair to everyone as policymakers."

Litvack has heard those arguments before. ...

Hate-crimes legislation makes strange bedfellows of conservatives and civil libertarians. Both balk at punishing criminals for their thoughts. And conservatives hesitate to list characteristics -- particularly sexual orientation -- for fear of granting gays and lesbians "special" legal status.

Much more:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/jan/01112004/utah/127966.asp

What do you guys think? I've always been split on hate-crimes legislation. On one hand, I certainly want to see an additional penalty levied if it can be proved a criminal committed a crime against a victim because of "bias or prejudice."

On the other hand, is it worth singling out each group, one by one, for protection? Sometimes, I don't think it is, but in this case, I'm troubled by the question of how you can prove motive ("bias or prejudice") if the best thing you've got against the defendant is indeed "mere abstract beliefs" (such as a defendant's membership in the KKK, for example) or "expressions or associations" (say, a history of gay-bashing)?

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. Well if they single each group...

... one by one for protection, then it also elimiates the idea that hate crime legislation for queers is merely a "special" right, doesn't it? I mean if every group is singled out, then how can they claim just one group is wanting a special right anymore? They can't. :)