Bart wrote: So the message to society is "don't shoot cops or we will levy additional penalties." I wonder to what degree that additional penalty for killing a police officer has impacted deaths of police officers. I'm going to guess not much...but it's only a guess.
If the general concensus is that the death penalty itself doesn't reduce capital crime, I'd be hard pressed to believe that incremental penalty for shooting a cop has a meaningful effect on the criminal mind.

My gut tells me that the heavier sentencing on hate crimes would have a positive effect on deterrence. But then again, my gut told me to have a big bowl of ice cream and right now I have a belly ache.

Bart wrote: BTW, Kevin what's your position on morbidly obese people being protected by hate crime legislation?
How about "little people"?
The physically challenged?
Old people?
Atheists?
Clergy?
Abortion providers?
Red haired people?

Should a perpetrator who holds up the jewelry store of an asian and calls him a racial epithet, be penalize more than the robber who holds up the jewelry store of a black person who is not racially insulted?

Where does it stop, and who is the aribitor of who should and should not be a special class of victim?

People of moral conviction, however, should oppose the hatred of people for any reason. But hate-crimes legislation doesn't stop hatred. Instead, it creates a special class of victims victims whose perpetrators receive more severe punishment for the very same physical or verbal acts that would not be as harshly punished if the crime were committed against someone who was not part of the special class. Let me give you one of many possible examples: An elderly African-American grandmother is severely beaten by a person of the same race who hates her activism against the area drug dealers. No hate crime, no special (more severe) punishment. Another elderly African-American grandmother is severely beaten by a white perpetrator who targets her because of her race. This perpetrator may have done exactly the same physical damage to the victim but would face substantially harsher punishment. No one has ever explained to me how these victims are equally protected from these perpetrators as required by our U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many conservatives are very concerned about the proposed expansion of hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. When expanded, these laws have been used in other nations to criminally prosecute individuals for speaking out against homosexual lifestyles. This proposed expansion could lead to pastors being prosecuted for biblically explaining why he or she opposes homosexual behavior. It should be understood that to many who want this law, the Bible contains "hate speech" and they would be quite satisfied with the prosecution of a pastor. Finally, some would argue that hate-crime legislation is necessary in the United States because of what occurred in World War II Germany when hate was left unchecked. To place the frequency of these crimes in our country in context, you need to know the levels of reported hate crimes here. In 2007 (the last year published), of 1.5 million violent crimes reported to the FBI by 2,025 law enforcement agencies nationwide, there were 8,999 hate crimes reported (slightly over 0.5 percent) and, of those, 1,460 (less than 0.1 percent) related to sexual orientation. As can be seen, these statistics do not reflect the level of unchecked hate that history recorded in Nazi Germany a hate that was actually sanctioned and encouraged by its government. So, for all of the above reasons, most conservatives do not support hate-crimes laws or the proposed expansion of them. James A. Williamson, of Tulsa, is an attorney and former Oklahoma state senator.

Congress recently reached agreement on landmark legislation that brings our nation closer to living up to its ideals.

Senate and House negotiators included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The act, which I helped shape as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will soon become law.

The hate crimes language included in the act has passed both houses of Congress in the past. Existing law gives federal officials jurisdiction over crimes of violence which are committed because of a person's race, color, religion, and national origin. The new language adds gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability and membership in the military.

The legislation is named after two Americans slain in hate crimes in 1998. Matthew Shepard was a University of Wyoming student beaten and left to die because he was gay. James Byrd Jr. was a Texas father of three dragged behind a pickup truck and killed because he was African-American.

These horrible crimes were committed just months apart more than a decade ago. And unfortunately, in the years since, violent crime motivated by bias and hatred have continued to bedevil us. Between 1998 and 2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 77,000 hate crimes were committed, the FBI reports. And crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias are the fastest growing class of hate crimes.

The bill would allow federal officials to step in only when local and state officials cannot or will not prosecute such cases. And it offers a number of forms of support to state and local officials seeking to prosecute hate crimes.

This legislation is an important victory for those who seek to live up to our national ideal of a nation free from the threat of violence because of one's identity. Unfortunately, some have attempted to block this legislation, generally making two criticisms.

The first is to claim that the legislation will outlaw certain political or religious views or speech, or prosecute "thought crimes." This is simply wrong. The law is carefully tailored to punish only violent acts, not thoughts or speech. In fact, the bill specifies that none of its provisions "shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

The second objection is to the inclusion of the hate crimes measure in the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Defense Department. Some members of Congress say the hate crimes bill is unrelated to this important defense legislation.

I believe this legislation is indeed related to our national defense. First, we ensure in the legislation that members of the military are protected from hate-motivated attacks based on their military status. Second, freedom from violence motivated by hate is one of the things our men and women in uniform fight for every day. Such violent crimes motivated by hate constitute a form of domestic terror.

Bart wrote:Why not just add hate crime penalties for EVERY criminal act? Then we can avoid this confusion, eliminate mindreading by the courts, protect the "community" of all possible groups while simultaneously protecting the individual, and give equal protection under the law to all?

i'm being a little fascitious of course, but only to point out how far this slippery slope can go.

I believe this legislation is indeed related to our national defense. First, we ensure in the legislation that members of the military are protected from hate-motivated attacks based on their military status. Second, freedom from violence motivated by hate is one of the things our men and women in uniform fight for every day. Such violent crimes motivated by hate constitute a form of domestic terror.