One would think that by committing a crime, punishment should be equal among all citizens. Isn't that the very definition of legal justice? Basically, hate crimes legislation will allow a court to rule that a man's thoughts make his crime worse. Isn't committing the crime bad enough? How far does one extend the idea? It's wrong and ridiculous that the motive of a crime should determine the severity of the punishment. Men should be free to think evil thoughts, but not to act on them. We can morally condemn a man who honestly believes that Jews are inferior as humans, but he doesn't deserve any further physical or legal condemnation until he acts on that belief. If he kills a Jew because he hates jews, his punishment should be no more nor less severe than the man who kills the store clerk in a robbery or the gangster who kills a random strager for initiation rites.

The underlying rule of justice should be the severity of the criminal action, not the ideas and motives behind it. Like freedom of speech, freedom to hold ideas, however bland, disgusting or evil, is the realm of moral jugement, in which the government has no place. And yet we continue to bestow this power upon the courts. It is wrong. So wrong.

The government could arbitrarily decide that one set of ideals are illegal and another are fine. White supremicists are to be tried under hate crimes laws, but not Mafia bosses. Gay bashers are to be given harsher sentences than gangsters. It's a contradiction of justice, and introducing it into the legal system is dangerous and horrible. I fully support any congressman who is willing to fillibuster this bill into oblivion. Damn the "democracy" advocates who scream "if the majority of people support hate crimes legislation, we need it."

What would those "democracy whores" have said in the 1890s South when the majority of people supported segregation and discrimination and pseudo-slavery? The purpose of a legal constitution and the rule of law is to provide a check against mob rule. Democracy without a rational and just legal system is just that - mob rule. Think about that as you formulate your opinions every day. Just like the "protection of marriage" acts most states passed a few years ago, it's a contradiction of justice for the majority to be able to remove the rights of a minority. Just because most people find white power fascists and gay-bashing blockheads to be vile and dispicable does not mean they deserve a different set of legal rights on any level.

Do the crime, do the time, regardless of your reasons for committing the crime. That's the way a just legal system works, and it's the only way a legal system can work. The Founding Fathers had a choice: tyrant rule, like the system they'd escaped in England, mob rule, which would mean nothing less than perpetual revolution (notice that most socialist states advocate a mass perpetual revolutionary atmosphere), or the rule of law. Only one of these can preserve justice and longevity for a nation. America has the oldest federal constitution in the world. Why do so many people want to destroy it?

A snarky, vapid piece on a recent front page of the Chronicle inspired me here. The author advocated mob rule through unchecked democracy; and hate crimes legislation as a just means of enforcing official government ideology. "Democracy" and "hate" are call words which make the brainless ballast of society perk up and start their shrill screaming; but actually making people understand what they're screaming about is seldom the point of journalism. Would that journalists were more interested in reporting unslanted news and rational arguments than simply contrubiting to the ever-increasing shrillness of the screaming.