Is it any worse a crime if someone walks into a convenience store and quietly executes the clerk and steals the money THAN IF that same person walks into the store, calls the clerk a nigger (or a fag, or a jew pig, etc) and executes the clerk and steals the money?

Same result, brutal crime - why is one worse than the other?

alameda929:

why is one worse than the other?

Politics.

"Why is one worse than the other?" It isn't.

It's complete nonsense. In fact, I'm not sure how any sane individual justifies "special" protection status to some and then reconcile that to the Equal Protection Clause.

The bottom line is that if a thing is a crime, we should prosecute it. How can justice be blind if the prosecution and charges brought are not?

alameda929:

Is it any worse a crime if someone walks into a convenience store and quietly executes the clerk and steals the money THAN IF that same person walks into the store, calls the clerk a nigger (or a fag, or a jew pig, etc) and executes the clerk and steals the money?

Same result, brutal crime - why is one worse than the other?

I think that's a little simplistic. Both would be murder while committing a robbery.

What if you take those 2 examples, and compare them to someone that happened to speeding a little too fast in the store parking lot, and hit and killed someone. They should get the same sentence as the robbers, right?

Since intent does and always has mattered, I suppose that there is a difference. As they say, "even a dog knows the difference in being kicked and being stepped on."

If a murder were only an offense of the murdered individual, then maybe no difference, but murder is a crime against the state.

When a robber just wants the money and disregards the life of the clerk, that is one thing. If the robber wants the money and hates the nigger, that is another.

I would argue that the state has an interest in making symbolic (and legal) gestures to oppose racism etc. Don't you?

alameda929:

Is it any worse a crime if someone walks into a convenience store and quietly executes the clerk and steals the money THAN IF that same person walks into the store, calls the clerk a nigger (or a fag, or a jew pig, etc) and executes the clerk and steals the money?

Same result, brutal crime - why is one worse than the other?

Oops, I meant to say "YOU RACIST!!!!!" Why do you hate black people, by the way? Bitter because you can't own them anymore?

because racism - while objectionable - is not a crime. If a person expresses racism while committing a crime, it is the crime that should be punished. Very simple, I think. Keep it surgical and leave the emoting and conjecture out of it.

the first time around.

a brutal execution.

The intent to rob a store and display a callous disregard for the clerk's life while using a weapon is equivalent to speeding in a parking lot to you? Of course not.

The fair comparison is robbing someone for their money, and robbing someone for their money while calling them a name, one that may or may not be applicable to the victim. In such a serious case, the application of a hate crime charge is pointless, it would not outweigh the sentence for armed robbery or murder.

Why is it a greater crime if the killer is a sociopath who is racist, than if the killer is a simple sociopath?

With all due respect, I don't think this is as simple a proposition as you make it out to be.