Why I Hate "Hate Crime" Laws Part II

I write this second part in response to an argument that the Hate Crime bills are worthy because they can put existing laws into a greater perspective that touches on the larger aims of an ideal just society. I disagree. And here's why.......

In general, from my knowledge, the vast majority of cases that are charged as hate crimes are already acknowledged and publicized in the media. In every case, there is and never has been anything that curtails public outrage or stops prosecutors from making a special issue of the aggravating factors to the public, nor any hindrance to the victims, special interest groups or the media from hyping a case to the public. All these actions serve to put the spotlight on the justice system and promote positive redress for the victim.

If anything, on a case by case basis, the accused in these situations have been publicly tarred and feathered before they get to court. Tacking on an inherently sensitive "hate" charge certainly fans the flame. But is it justice? Is it effective? Does it serve as a bone thrown to the community while using the judicial branch as a whipping branch to punish an individual for past and present societal problems?

"Feel good" criminal laws are morally unacceptable when individuals, pitiful as they generally are, become scapegoats for the bigger picture. The RICO Act keeps tugging at me as I write this. Some say that fits this definition. But it doesn't. Conspiracy laws don't cover organized crime. The RICO Act is also unique in that it confiscates the ill-gotten proceeds of those crimes. And it is TRULY EFFECTIVE against an ongoing problem. It serves a legitimate purpose.
It has been used successfully against organized hate groups.

I feel that hate crime laws are the antithesis of the larger aims of an ideal, just society. Ideals we strive for. Justice lives. Hate crimes are not just.

I think they would be valid in some form, in some circumstances. Sort of like calling out the National Guard when civil enforcement is overwhelmed or negligent. Montgomery, Alabama is a perfect example. The key difference is that in these cases, we are adapting to situations that can only be remedied by focused action to assist or coerce ineffective venues, almost always state and local. They are not tossed in to politically bolster laws that are already in the books.