So, Ake, did you ever read what I wrote? I think you're advocating that we should shortcut past some basic principles of criminal justice.

In most countries that aren't dictatorships, criminals do NOT forfeit their rights by their actions. They still have a right to humane treatment, and to a fair trial - and it is the duty of the government to gather evidence to provide proof against them in a fair trial. They lose their rights only if they have been proven guilty - and even then, they must be treated fairly and humanely.

If you think criminals should be handled differently, then perhaps your ideal government would be what you'd find in Iran or North Korea.

As for hate laws, I was surprised to see so many people claim that they are a violation of a defendant's free speech, that the criminal should be punished for the crime alone and not for the "hate" aspect of his crime. Hate crimes cause fear. They can terrorize an entire community and restrict their freedom by making them afraid to leave their homes. The hate criminal causes real harm to the community that is affected, and it is right for society to show it's disapproval of such crimes by increasing the punishment for a crime if it is a hate crime.

I know a Rwandan priest who was assigned to a rural area north of Sacramento, an area known to be a "redneck" area. Well, somebody burned a cross on his driveway. One might expect this could happen in the deep south, but not in California. Do you mean to tell me that this cross burning should be a protected experssion of free speech? The cross burners wheren't protected, by the way - they were sent to jail. And the priest seems to have survived the ordeal quite well - he's outspoken, friendly, gentle, and with a crazy sense of humor. It's a shame that such a crime should happen to such a nice man.

-Joe-