isn't this totally at odds with tge common law doctrine of mens rea, though? Motivation is typically pretty central to the whole Western concept of justice. We even have different names and different sentences for the same act depending on what the motivation was.
I'm typically against hate crime laws because they jeopardize equality under the law, but not because I don't think it's valid to consider motivation.
In the bolded part, which crimes are you thinking of?
I'm neither a lawyer, nor a scholar of latin, but having seen
Legally Blond, I know that "mens rea" means "malicious will." Whatever it means, considering motive doesn't mean that we have to super-punish people who hate "protected classes." I thought, based on my extensive viewing of Matlock and Castle, that motive was a matter of establishing that the person had a reason to commit the crime of which they're accused. Otherwise, it's hard to convince a jury that they were likely to have done it.
Also, are you confusing motive with intent? If I form a plan to go out with my friends and lynch a certain type of person, that's the kind of intent that gets me a first degree murder charge. That's because I intended to commit murder, as opposed to accidentally killing someone, by driving recklessly. "Hate crime" goes one step further, by punishing me according to who I choose to lynch. So a hatred for black people that causes someone to lynch only black people is a hate crime. A hatred for red-haired women that causes a serial killer to murder only red-haired women is not a hate crime. Do you see a problem that dichotomy?
