In this article, Man arrested on hate crime charge in NYC firebomb attacks, it disturbs me on principle that the man is being indicted on "hate crime" charges. The man made (mostly incompetent) molotov cocktail attacks on a variety of locations that seemed to have no ideological connection other than that he had various grievances with them.
The fact that two of the places were religiously affiliated (to completely different religions) seems irrelevant: there's no indication he attacked them because he hated their religions -- it mentions that his grievance with one might have been that he wasn't allowed to use their restrooms. He's an angry nut, that's all.
By this reason, any molotov cocktail attack is a "hate" crime, because you really only throw molotov cocktails at things and people you hate, right?
Why aren't our "normal" laws and penalties against arson and property destruction enough? Not to mention all the other laws this guy most have broken. Theoretically these laws were thought out and implemented with all due seriousness and given appropriate penalties for the crime, right? Why, then, do we need to label it a "hate" crime? Are there non-hateful molotov cocktail attacks, and are those any less serious to the victims?
No comments:
Post a Comment