Dorf needs to recharge the belltones.

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

In his column, and some parts were persuasive, Dorf has this to say about the libertarian argument against "hate crimes" legislation:

"But this brings us to the second reason why the libertarian objection to hate crimes is misplaced, if raised with respect to the current controversy: If you think hate crime legislation impermissibly interferes with freedom of thought, then you will object to all hate crime legislation--including the existing version of the hate-crime law (the one that does not list sexual orientation). Yet the Administration has not even hinted that it would like to see the current federal hate crime law repealed."

Apparantly, Dorf thinks that Bush has changed hats and become not only a libertarian, but all libertarians.  I would be surprised if Dorf could not go to a libertarian think tank and not find one person who objects to ANY sort of "hate crime" legislation, not just that for sexual orientation. 

But now onto the legislation itself, which Dorf claims is NOT a pork barrel project.  It may not be, but if there's cash, the pigs will come a oinking, count on that.  In our own little hamlet, we have recently had a charming group of fellows that thought another human being could be used as a punching bag.  If the suspects are found guilty, absolutely they should be sent away for a rather long time, not only for punishment but to ensure the rest of us who have found ways to express our thoughts outside of punches and kicks can be safer for it.  But the question now is, would those people who assaulted this teenager have not done it if some sort of "hate crime" status was in effect?

This is a hard game to play, since we are counting negatives.  How many people would NOT have engaged in a particular action based upon a presumed punishment.  This goes as well for the fellow in Chicago who was apparently assaulted because he was gay.  In order to believe this, you have to think that there was some line in the sand in terms of punishment that would have cut through their hate filled emotive states.  "I'd really like to pound that homosexual, but I can't.  I'd get an extra 5 years for it".

Part of the reason that I have abandoned advocacy of the death penalty is that I fail to see how anybody in a heated state of passion would get down and study the law books before offing somebody.   There are several reasons to off somebody, but three major groups are passion, insanity, or profit.  Passion and insanity are two groups of people who aren't thinking right in the first place.  So you're left with profit, and mostly I'd think they'd be more concerned about whether or not they got caught in the first place than what the punishment was.