It's so hard to prove hate crimes in Court. With the Martin case, for example, there was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant was motivated by hate or racism. I am willing to wait for the GM's analysis though.
That's true.
The issue is that if there was a statistically significant increase in hate crimes (which I very much doubt is actually the case), then we have no choice but to repeal. As it stands, I find that EXTREMELY unlikely; would the common racist even know or care that any crime he/she perpetrates would just be punished under the merits of said crime? Probably not, honestly.
How would anyone know how many crimes have been hate crimes if they hadn't been prosecuted as such?
