Texas is in the process of passing a hate crime law.

I think that was pretty inevitable. There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in Texas ever since one of the most heinous and senseless crimes of all time was committed there.

You may remember the case of James Byrd. He was the 49-year-old black man who was chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to death.

Three scumbucket white guys did the dragging. Two of them were sentenced to death. The third received life in prison with no chance of parole.

Nonetheless, Texas, under intense pressure to do something - anything - about hate crimes, is poised to enact the James Byrd Hate Crime Law.

The law would impose harsher penalties for criminals who are motivated by a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disabilities, age or national origin.

Here's a quote from Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff as reported by Scripps Howard News Service.

'I felt like it was probably very important that we send a message to the world that crimes committed from motivation of hatred are not to be tolerated in the state of Texas."

That's nice. But I hope he feels the same way about crimes motivated by greed, stupidity or just plain meanness.

Those crimes will just have to be adjudicated under existing statutes, which is exactly what happened in the James Byrd case.

There are a couple things about hate crime legislation that bother me, but one thing just plain baffles me.

How much harsher a penalty could we have given the dirtbags in the James Byrd case?

Two of them are scheduled to die for their involvement.

So even if a hate crime statute had existed at the time of their crime, they couldn't have received a harsher sentence.

Of course if we could abolish the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution - the one about cruel and unusual punishment - then maybe we could get somewhere.

We could have the Eye-For-An-Eye Law.

That's where if you get convicted of chaining a guy to the back of a pickup and dragging him to death, your punishment would be for the victim's relatives to chain you to the back of a pickup truck and drag you to death.

Yeah, I might go along with something like that. Nah, too barbaric.

But as it stands, no matter how horrible a crime you commit, the worst thing that can happen to you is government-imposed death.

Punishment in the United States just doesn't come any more severe.

So if hate crime laws are supposed to be a deterrent to hateful people who commit crimes, I don't think they will work.

Stiffer sentences and harsher penalties have never been shown to deter other crimes. I can't imagine it will be any different with hate.

Nothing in Texas' new law would have prevented James Byrds' murder.

Nothing in the law would have made the penalties any more harsh.

Another thing that bothers me about hate crime laws is that they ask prosecutors, judges and jurors to get inside the heads of the accused to determine motive.

Was the crime motivated by hate? Suddenly you have two crimes instead of one.

First, the actual assault, battery, murder or whatever. And second, you have the motive.

Hate crime laws tend to create a new class of crime, the crime of being motivated by hate. I think this must be the first time in the history of our judicial system where motive is a crime.

Seems to me it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what somebody's motivation was.

Finally, I think hate crime laws discriminate against the victims of all other crimes not motivated by hate.

If a guy walks into a liquor store and shoots the clerk to death, grabs the cash drawer and runs, he's motivated by greed.

In a state with a hate crime law, that victim isn't quite as important to the government as some other victims.

A crime against that clerk isn't quite as serious as a crime against some other class of hate crime victim.

But I know why states are passing hate crime laws. I know why the issue will come up again in Congress.

It makes people feel like they are doing something about senseless crimes committed against certain classes of individuals.

Furthermore, it's probably difficult for legislative bodies to say no to these laws in today's America.

Being against hate crime laws is not very politically correct. The politically correct thing to do is to just nod and pass the laws.

I don't see any harm coming from these laws. I don't see a great likelihood of someone being wrongly accused or convicted or anything like that.

I just question - speaking of motives - the motivation of lawmakers who pass these hate crime laws.

Are they out to make the world a better place or are they trying to feel warm and fuzzy and look politically correct? [[In-content Ad]]