Thought police

I've always been a little unclear on the thinking behind "hate crime" laws. Until police develop a mind-reading tool, they really don't know what anyone is thinking. That means authorities can only punish phsyical manifestations of that thinking, such as intimidation or vandalism, which are already crimes. So the fact that Indiana is one of only five states without specific hate-crime laws doesn't necessarily make us backward. Maybe this is one of those cases in which Hoosiers are smarter than others. I probably can't win this argument, since even being against such laws is probably evidence of a terrible character flaw:

State Rep. Duane Cheney, D-Portage, said a hate crime law would have a tough time winning approval in the conservative Indiana General Assembly, although he would support such a measure.

"I believe we have a duty to send a message that it is morally wrong on its face," he said of hate crimes, "especially in a nation where we claim to be welcoming to all."

I presume he means that the acting out on hatred is the moral wrong, not the hatred itself, which is a mere emotion. I doubt if hatred can ever be eliminated, even by trying to outlaw it. And I don't relish the idea of the authorities messing around in our psyches, even with good intentions. The point of "aggravating circumstances" in the law is to give extra punishment to offenses that are especially reckless or dangerous. "Hate crime" laws seem to stretch that concept a little.