Hate Crimes: The state knows what you are thinking

I’ve been kicking around ideas for this blog for over two months. The problem is I always get stuck on one thing… a corroborating main stream media story to tie things together. In this case the “Paper of Record” not only served as that source, but made it a slam dunk.

No Hate Required for Hate Crime in Gay Man’s Death, Judge Rules


Hate crime statutes vary from state to state and they are not equally applied. First point, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this basic issue, all crimes are driven from some form of disregard for the rights of another. It is too easy, and sometimes false to say all crime involves hate, because there are cases where people rob for medicine for a loved one and others who are sociopaths and don’t hate anyone, they don’t recognize them as equals. Hate for the victim doesn’t apply in either of those cases.


My main reason for disliking hate crime statutes is that they invoke shadows of the dreaded “Thought Police” rounding up those who don’t share the same ideas as the state. The original hate laws were passed to be used as mitigating circumstances for use at sentencing but have since morphed into being a crime in and of itself. And now, bringing the statutes full circle and making my fears a reality, a NY judge ruled that you can be guilty of a hate crime even without hate being involved in the crime. In other words, the state will decide if your crime involved hate or not.


Yes, the state has the obligation to protect its citizens, but to decide what the offender was thinking when he committed the crime exceeds the constitutional mandates of protection and borders on enslavement. Besides, using the judge’s logic in her decision that the criminals targeted their victim because of his sexual orientation then rape would almost always be a hate crime since the rapist almost always targets women.


Hate crime statues began to get passed due to knee jerk reactions to unusually brutal acts of violence. But it is the acts of violence that should be against the law, not what people think. It could be argued that it is someone’s inalienable right to dislike another person, race of people, or anyone they want to dislike, based upon totally subjective criteria that they alone set.

Hate crime statutes bordered on infringing upon free speech and freedom of expression prior to Judge Konvisor’s decision, she just knocked over the shaky house of cards these statutes were built out of when she declared the state can decide your frame of mind when the crime was committed.

Once again it is political correctness and liberalism that bring us closer to George Orwell’s Big Brother The left always screech that conservatism is gunning to take away your rights, and yet it is the liberal policies that are turning our constitutional rights into legislated permission and privileges.