In the 1980's the governments of the United States created a new sort of crime; hate crime.
The FBI defines hate crime as: "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientatio, or ethnicity/national origin." The 1994 Crime Act included the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act which stated that a person who committed a crime based on hate would be punished more severe than someone who committed a similar crime not based on hate (NCJRS, Hate Crime Resources - Legislation). Analysing this statement, someone who has committed a hate crime is partly punished by his or her motives. This makes that hate crime laws in the United States of America are superfluous, unjust, discriminating against victims of other crimes, and in violation of the First Amendment.
At first, in the US hate crime laws are superfluous. Every crime that can be committed can already be punished under state laws and local laws. If someone commits a crime he has broken the law and is punished for that. An example: if a man murders a black woman because she is black, he should be charged with murder in the first degree. If another man kills a black woman because he just wants to, he should be charged with murder in the first degree. According to the law the first murder is a hate crime and the second is not, so the first murder will be charged more severely because the government thinks that crimes motivated by hate are worse than the same crime committed for another reason. But are not both women dead? Are not both families mourning? Murder is murder; the motivation behind it should not matter in the conviction of the perpetrator. What if someone mugs a black Muslim? Would he be punished three times worse? First for the mugging, then for mugging a black man, and then also for mugging a Muslim? This is not right.
