Victims of hate crimes vary in the indiscretions placed against them, whether it is from a simple slander to a vicious attack. But they all have the same mutual notion that the crimes that were committed against them are far above other crimes because they were carried out in hate. I believe that the idea of creating a separate punishment for crimes of this nature is absolutely nonsensical and inane in theory.
             In the attached article, it states that "Congressional negotiators stripped a measure to strengthen 1960s-era hate crimes law from a massive defense bill, likely killing for this year the effort to broaden hate crimes protections for gay people and the disabled (Reuters, 2004)." This action, for some, it a disappointment and a big step back in their movement. "Backers of the hate crimes legislation, a top priority for gay rights and disabled advocacy groups (Reuters, 2004)" seem more interested in intensifying punishment that is only against them. Such cases that they believe deserved intensification are those like "the dragging death of a black man named James Byrd in Texas (Reuters, 2004)" and "the fatal beating of a young gay man named Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Williams, 2004)."
             But I believe the ideals that those kind of people are fighting for is a futile effort and a lost cause. Singling out crimes and criminals with the addition of "hate" has no added value in the context of the crime. A crime that has been committed in the essence of hate is only as valid as a crime that is not completely perpetrated out of hate. And yes, a hate crime is seen as more debauched in our growingly politically correct society, but under the scrutiny of law it should not be seen as a special crime in need of special punishment. In our legislation we should not make a special needs section to satisfy the victims of intolerance.
             In our society everything and everyone is sup...