In the spirit as the classic verbal game of “would you rather “and the practise of thought experiments, I’d like to pose a question to the readership on hate laws, pondering their efficacy and validity.
Which is worse? Someone being murdered for self enrichment or someone being murdered in a racially charged attack?
Is there a moral difference in motivation and do they require distinction in law and punishment? When and why does an aggravating factor require an entirely new branch of law?
Why does a motive in a hate prosecution apply in these circumstances but not when someone murders their own child for instance? Is murdering your child morally less abhorrent than murdering someone because they from a different identity group?