In general, I’m supportive of hate crime legislation — though I’m absolutely against hate speech legislation as an obvious affront to free speech — but when conservatives would accuse hate crime legislation of criminalizing thought — the crux of the argument being that the crime is the same but the thoughts behind the crime, killing someone because they’re black rather than because they owe you money for example, differ which makes a crime’s punishment differ based on the criminal’s thoughts — I’ve had little to argue against that point. I’d always known that it wasn’t a wholly convincing argument but it always left a tinge of doubt in my thoughts about hate crime legislation.

There are a few reasons I wouldn’t be able to counter this argument: I have little experience with the law and so don’t feel a comfortable extrapolating in that field; the argument has never been convincing enough for me to sit down and think about why it’s flawed; and finally, maybe I’m just not smart enough to explain why I thought the argument didn’t work. Well, none of that matters because publius, who I think has stepped up his game since Hilzoy retired from blogging, has written what I consider to be the definitive defense of hate crime legislation. You really should read the whole thing, but here’s a snippet that sums up the argument fairly well:

In one sense, all crimes criminalize “thought.” The American criminal justice system requires showing not merely an act, but an intent. If I fall down accidentally and kill you, I can’t be prosecuted. Yes, I committed an act of homicide, but I didn’t intend to do that act.

QED Bitches.