Stiffer penalties for hate crimes reflect our values

Utah doesn't need a sentencing enhancement for hate crimes because it would create "special rights" for certain groups of people, so I've been told in the avalanche of e-mail I received this past week.

Guess what? A lot of other people already have "special" protections under Utah law.

Assault a pregnant woman and your sentence can be enhanced from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class A misdemeanor. Same goes for school employees, peace officers, correctional officers and health-care providers.

Murder a public official or a candidate for public office (and if the homicide is based on the official's "position, act, capacity or candidacy") you'll face a capital murder charge, an increased penalty from murder, a first-degree felony. Same goes for police officers, prison officials, firefighters, judges, probation officers, parole officers if these officials are on duty or because the homicide is based on their official positions.

There are any number of sentencing enhancements for committing a crime near a school, park or church.

Anyone who spikes a tree, disables mining equipment or commits a criminal offense to "halt, impede, obstruct or interfere" with a lawful timber, mining or agriculture business faces a higher penalty.

This is hardly a complete list of sentencing enhancements, but Utah's criminal code would appear chock full of laws with enhanced penalties based on the victim, motive or other public safety concern.

I don't have a problem with any of them because our laws are a statement of our values. Anyone who assaults or kills peace officers — the men and women sworn to protect us — should face a harsher punishment, end of story. Similar arguments can be made to support sentencing enhancements for assaults against teachers, health-care providers and prison guards.

Another consistent theme in my e-mail bag this past week was: Aren't all crimes hate crimes?

No, not all crimes are hate crimes.

The robbery of a convenience store clerk who happens to be Hispanic is not a hate crime. More likely, the robber is stealing to support a drug habit. The clerk wasn't robbed because he was Hispanic. He was robbed because he had the dumb luck of being scheduled to work that day.

That's different than someone burning a cross on an African-American's lawn. The intent of such a crime is to instill fear in a larger group of people who share the same characteristics as the victim or victims. No doubt, the convenience store clerk may feel fear, but the crime against him could readily have happened to the Caucasian clerk on the next shift. The motive in that scenario is easy money, not hatred against Hispanics.