James Fox

The tragic events in Jonesville brought Bill Clinton quickly to the TV screen demanding Congress take the necessary action to create law, law to bring special punishment for "hate crimes." In response to the extreme left in the party's demands and to garner their support, he pandered to their needs even though what they were seeking was unconstitutional. The very foundation of our nation is based on law. Criminal law enforcement and prosecution are based on the following issues: who, what, when and where. Each can contribute verifiable, objective evidence in any case. Why, or motive, is purely subjective and can only be used to support other evidence. M.O.M, (means, opportunity, and motive), go together in an investigation, or in an attorney's presentation. Motive can never stand alone.

We can never place degrees of punishment based on motive other than the ones already in place. The Supreme Court would throw out such a law without even considering it. Prop 209 is a Black and White document if ever one has been written. It states in clear, concise terms that state and local governments cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. This Proposition passed all sorts of court challenges including the Supreme Court and Bill Clinton trying to overturn it. I'm sure any attempt to discriminate in punishment because of crimes against any individual or group on the basis of sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin should receive the same treatment. The United States Supreme Court should view the issue as the same.

In my opinion, we already have far too much of this going on now. In the pre Benjammen Spock America, It was, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." After Spock, it became, Throw away the rod and let the little child evolve." Now, we have our judges overturning jury decisions and making all kinds of subjective decisions. Juries are making decisions based on their feeling about circumstances leading to a person deciding on a life of crime.

In conclusion, I say let the first, second, and third estate of government decide on the who, what, when, and where; and let the fourth estate, the news media, worry about "why."