Couldn't this argument be applied just the same to the use of consecutive sentences for repeat or compounded crime, or any other "piling on" of sentencing beyond life without parole? That is, isn't there a value in ensuring formal recognition and punishment - even if it is functionally redundant - of the gravity or multitude of the crimes committed?

That redudancy has always struck me as, well, redundant, and serves no actual purpose. You cannot kill someone 2x for murder, or sentence them to more than one natural life in prison except in some abstract, metaphysical universe.

But for lesser crimes, say assault, two scenarios:

(a) Progressive Pete had a bad day at work and is at a watering hole. He's downed three beers and just topped them off with a shot of Wild Turkey. He's been listening to the male creature next to him hold forth on how the Bible says "fags" are an abomination, and there is no worse sin that homosexuality. Homosexuals are a blight upon the community and we gotta stop their "agenda," else Jesus will smite us. Progressive Pete hauls off and punches the orator, breaking his nose.

(b) Progressive Pete is the one doing the orating. He heard some fundamentalist on the news earlier that day fulminating against gays, and he is pissed. He's going on and on about those "damn fundies," and their sick understanding of God. The guy next to him -- assuming Progressive Pete is gay, and in any event not liking what he's hearing -- punches Pete and breaks his nose.

Should Pete be charged w/ a hate crime (in addition to assault) based on antipathy to religious belief in scenario (a), and the other bar patron so charged based on his belief that Pete is gay in scenario (b)?

I don't understand your argument. The prosecutor can do whatever they want to do rightly or wrongly, but that is an argument against the prosecutors competence, not against the law involved.

Anytime one considers changes -- and especially causes for enhanced penalty or additional crimes -- to the penal code, a civil libertarian will think about how the legislation can be used by prosecutors. There are any number of laws on the books that are wildly and pervasively abused by prosecutors to destroy peoples' lives, such as statutory rape laws vis-a-vis teenaged boys (and sometimes girls), or RICO. Give prosecutors tools, and they can and do go to unintended extremes, to the detriment of many.

Lynching is already illegal. So is assault. Or rape. These crimes generally already carry heavy penalties. What would "hate crime" enhancement add to the serious crimes?

To a victim of lynching, the crime could not have been any worse, they were tortured and then murdered. But they were tortured and murdered for a specific reason, to send a message to others like them. The lynching was a horrific crime against the victim, but it also was a crime against society as well which made it stand out above common murder in its effects.

Yes, but here is why the ambivalence I had -- which Glenn holds -- ultimately fell into disfavoring hate crime laws. What more can you do to those lynchers? They murdered a human being most viciously, and need to be locked up with no possibility of parole. Burning a cross close to a black family's home is an inherent threat, and should prosecuted as a threat to do bodily harm.

Prosecutors do not need to be given another tool to abuse. If any time the victim of a crime differs in race, gender or sexual orientation the prosecutor can raise the penalty -- and they will, as night follows day even if there was no actual prejudice motivating choice of victim -- that is not good. And just wait until some progressive assaults a Christianist for talking sh*t about gays and is then prosecuted for enhanced penalty -- you know, for disrespecting the Christianist's religious views, and you might get the point.

Not a mere "social trend" -- what the state of law in Portugal has resulted in. Altho I will give you that law affects social activity.

Yes. While he has varying degrees of proficiency in a number of languages other than English, the man absolutely sucks at French. Which is my only other language (barely, after too many years of having little opportunity to use it).

But if France (or another Francophone nation) liberalizes its drug laws, I will get up to snuff tout de suite, and beg to go with him for field work. :)

The solution to both problems (commerce and due process) is to say that the federal government may have a role in trafficking, but not possession / low level distribution

Agreed. However, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for federal involvement where people "grow their own," and distribute to friends intrastate. Especially for growers whose state has legalized or decriminalized, or which permit medical mj dispensaries.

And the only interstate commerce that should have any arguable legitimacy re: trafficking, is to ensure compliance with such laws as the Pure Food and Drug act. There is a reason the United States Constitution was amended to permit beverage alcohol prohibition at the federal level; the limits of the Commerce Clause were then reasonably understood and upheld.