In order to agree with the charge of assault, rather than manslaughter, you must agree that that someone who kills with the intent to kill is a worse criminal than one who kills by accident.

Or, you could take the logical view that someone who kills with intent is much more likely to kill again. Moreover, punishing the intent to kill serves as a deterrent, whereas punishing an accident doesn’t.

The difference between intent to commit a crime and intent to commit a crime for a specific reason is a useless distinction from the POV of maintaining order.

Yes, intent is important. If I see a bunch of kids run in front of my car, swerve and kill some poor guy on the sidewalk [someone I don’t like and drive onto the sidewalk and kill them] that is a terrible tragedy, but what crime should I be punished with? However, if I see someone I don’t like [because they are gay,] and drive onto the sidewalk and kill them what crime is that? The outcome is identical but the intent could not be more different. Likewise, the punishments could not be more different.

Why is legislation that punishes deliberate death more than accidental death okay, and legislation that punishes killing due to hate of an entire group more than killing for other reasons not okay? In both cases, the difference comes down to thoughts in a person’s head. As far as I can see, these things are two sides of the same coin.

Yes, intent is important. If I see a bunch of kids run in front of my car, swerve and kill some poor guy on the sidewalk that is a terrible tragedy, but what crime should I be punished with? However, if I see someone I don’t like and drive onto the sidewalk and kill them what crime is that? The outcome is identical but the intent could not be more different. Likewise, the punishments could not be more different.

@Eric
I assume the gay panic thing was meant for me. I feel sad that you live in a society where going to the bathroom can be considered a dangerous activity for some people. It is not my intent to defend assault of any kind, simply to point out that legislation exists to protect people as people and as soon as we go about giving groups rights that other groups don’t we forever mark them as different and vulnerable when they shouldn’t be.
Harsher sentencing for some CRIMES may be the answer, not some spurious invention of a new crime. Once laws exist they are notoriously difficult to remove.

Sorry Eric, I can’t see anything in this that is wrong. Someone violated the guy’s personal space, he lashed out and got done for assault.

The target of the assault died. In order to agree with the charge of assault, rather than manslaughter, you must agree that that someone who kills with the intent to kill is a worse criminal than one who kills by accident. Since intent is only a thought, you are therefore a proponent of thoughtcrime legislation. And a freedom hater.

Not to mention that nobody has brought up the issue where a minority has to live in fear of going into the wrong RESTROOM. At least laws like these give somebody transgendered legal ground. You know, instead of instantly being labeled a pervert for simply existing.

FBI figures, 2007:
Number of Hate crimes based on religion: 1,477. No deaths
Number based on sexual orientation: 1,460. 5 deaths.

Current laws do not permit the FBI to count crimes based on Gender Identity. The best figures we have are consistent with the FBI figures. They show 1,460 crimes based on sexual orientation (5 deaths), 870 based on gender identity (16 deaths).

Crimes against transgendered people tend to be at the more extreme end – hours-long torture/rape sessions rather than a single punch, for example.

Law enforcement and police accounted for 8% of the 2550 total offenders for 2007, the 4th largest offender category. As was the case in the Deep South before Hate Crime legislation was passed covering racial hatred, often it is the police who are the perpetrators, so there is no local legal recourse, regardless of what state law might say.

Source : National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

Example : The beating (captured on video) of a Trans woman at a Memphis police station. She was later found shot before being able to give evidence against the police who beat her up. The Memphis police are mystified as to who could possibly have a motive.

The clear-up rate for homicides in the USA is about 70%. Except when the victim is transgendered, then it’s 30%.

Those figures strongly suggest that existing laws are not being enforced. It is especially unfortunate that the FBI is not permitted to gather statistics about crimes against trans people, so we could be more certain of the extent of the problem.

However, I’m not really convinced that a liberal pastor would even consider going to mount the pulpit in a particular church at particular time and preach a series of vile, hateful sermons would be an intelligent or good idea. Or does the religous use of liberal conflict with mine?

Would you be crying out for a hate crime if the other guy had been a robber and he’d lashed out?

The tragic, unintended result of the guy falling and hitting his head and dying makes the punishment seem light, but death was not the intention from what I read into it.

This is a perfect example of trying to treat the perpetrator differently based on the victim. The only situations we allow that are when the victim is part of a group that are vulnerable: the mentally disabled and children being the most obvious. Are you saying that blacks, gays, Jews etc. should all come under the heading ‘vulnerable’? Have special protection under law as they are incapable of self-determination?