Stop The Hate

As readers of the blog may know, I oppose hate crime laws because I don't believe you should have extra time put on your sentence due to the fact you held unpopular political beliefs while you committed your crime.  But even if I agreed in principle with the concept, I think I'd still oppose such laws since they would be administered politically, not consistently.

Even what's considered a hate crime and what isn't is essentially an impossible categorization to do fairly.  Many, probably most, violent crimes are borne out of hatred, so how can you decide which hate is acceptable and which isn't?  Case in point, the recent trial of Floyd Corkins, who was convicted of a violent attack, but didn't commit a hate crime.  (He was convicted of committing a terrorist act, which is a different argument.) He shot an unarmed security guard at the Family Research Council before that same guard subdued him, but was ready to do quite a bit more.

There's no question he was motivated by his politcal hatred of the group--he said so. (He was also mentally ill, as many who decide to shoot up places are.) Just before shooting the guard he announced at the group's front door "I don't like your politics" and after being subdued told the guard "I don't like these people and I don't like what they stand for."

Corkins volunteered at a gay community center and had grown to hate organizations he thought were anti-gay, including the Family Research Council and Chick-fil-A.  In fact, he had in his backpack fifteen Chick-fil-A sandwiches, planning to shove them in the faces of his victims to make a statement.  He also had a list of three other conservative organizations he was planning to get to.

I'm not saying he should get extra years for targeting a group of people he hated, I'm just saying if he doesn't, why should anyone else?

PS  The judge apparently made a remarkable statement during sentencing:

You are not alone in criticizing those who oppose gay rights, but a man killing opponents does not change the opponents’ minds. It does not open their hearts. It does not bring about gay rights. If anything, it makes opponents more entrenched. If anything, it feeds whatever moral arsenal they perceive to fight against gay rights. Many indications show the opponents losing favor, but it has not been because of anyone killing them.

When a president thoughtfully spoke up, it shook loose many of the entrenched opponents in his faith community. When some women and men highly revered in America chose to come out, that added far more support for gay rights than murder ever will. That’s how we affect positive change in this country, not by shootings.

So essentially he's saying he's down with Floyd Corkins, he just doesn't like his tactics.  Presumably, if these tactics worked the judge might change his mind.

He's also giving political analysis of the gay rights situation (and questionable analysis at that) that would be fine in a newspaper editorial but has no place in a courtroom.  A judge should know better.