The line of reasoning is on track but not quite there. Rico's extra penalties are not based on intent but based on conspiracy. Conspiracies have always been punished more severely than the base crime because the common law (judge made law of the 18th century) believed that the evil multiple men in agreement can commit is greater than the evil one man can commit (the sum is greater than any individual part).
The punishment was based on preventing greater harm through group agreement to the act. The reason (or motive) for the crime (hate or group profit) is irrelevant only that there was an agreement to do harm.
The main benefit of conspiracy crimes to the public is early intervention to stop the crime. Because the main elements of conspiracy is an agreement to an illegal act and an action in furtherance of the agreement a persons can be arrested and punished just as severely without doing the evil that was agreed to.
Crime is all based on the criminal having an evil mind (I intend to harm a human) and an evil action (I harm an innocent human). We generally punish criminals for the damage they do. If we say that harming a cat lover deserves 10 years in prison, but if you harm a dog lover you only get 5 years in prison then society and the legal system has said that the harm perpetrated on one person is worse than on another and therefore the cat lover is more important or more valued than the dog lover.
Hate crimes begin to classify personal beliefs into categories where the government begins to punish motive. Motive has never been an element of crime, it does however provide circumstantial evidence that a criminal had the required evil mind needed to commit the crime. Punishing for different motives is legislation of thought and it has never been a crime to think something.
Hate crimes allow us to punish for thinking something when carried to their extremes. Eventually the government will only require speech to be the evil act necessary to complete the crime started with a thought. Even if some thinking is evil, it too should be protected because the free exchange of ideas is central to our basis as country.
The punishment was based on preventing greater harm through group agreement to the act. The reason (or motive) for the crime (hate or group profit) is irrelevant only that there was an agreement to do harm.
The main benefit of conspiracy crimes to the public is early intervention to stop the crime. Because the main elements of conspiracy is an agreement to an illegal act and an action in furtherance of the agreement a persons can be arrested and punished just as severely without doing the evil that was agreed to.
Crime is all based on the criminal having an evil mind (I intend to harm a human) and an evil action (I harm an innocent human). We generally punish criminals for the damage they do. If we say that harming a cat lover deserves 10 years in prison, but if you harm a dog lover you only get 5 years in prison then society and the legal system has said that the harm perpetrated on one person is worse than on another and therefore the cat lover is more important or more valued than the dog lover.
Hate crimes begin to classify personal beliefs into categories where the government begins to punish motive. Motive has never been an element of crime, it does however provide circumstantial evidence that a criminal had the required evil mind needed to commit the crime. Punishing for different motives is legislation of thought and it has never been a crime to think something.
Hate crimes allow us to punish for thinking something when carried to their extremes. Eventually the government will only require speech to be the evil act necessary to complete the crime started with a thought. Even if some thinking is evil, it too should be protected because the free exchange of ideas is central to our basis as country.
