The original “hate crime” law was applicable only if the victim was engaged certain federally-protected activities – such as voting or going to school – at the time the crime was committed.


That makes sense to me, to have federal protection against crimes aimed particularly at attacking/terrorizing somebody when they are trying to engage in a federally-protected activity. You can see in that the true spirit of the law as intended, to keep bigots from trying to terrorize minorities out of voting, going to school, and so forth.


In that sense, I have no problem with sexual orientation being included. If some jackass wants to attack a gay person in an attempt to make gays fearful of voting – sure, that would qualify as a federal offense, IMO.


But to try to define any crime anywhere as a “hate crime” based on the status of the victim is, IMO, just silly.


It’s also not needed. That’s why we allow prosecutors and defense attorneys to argue the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are unique to each crime.


No special federal legislation is needed for that.