Attacks on homeless-hate crime?

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/08homeless.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1249729829-vkC6fbXI3zv3ieXzvTHUiA

I can't believe some people attack homeless people without provocation. I read somewhere that a homeless man in LA was set on fire by a store owner. I don't recall exactly but I think the store owner was angry because the homeless guy asked for money and hung around the area and made it bad for business.

[Anonymous]

If it is a hate crime, get ready to see more of it-read the Atlanta Tearing Down Public Housing thread.

[Anonymous]

This kind of far-fetched application of "hate crime" laws really bothers me. "Hate crime" legislation was initially enacted to protect discrete groups of individuals that are of protected classes, i.e., race, religion. It was more recently extended to protect homosexuals, who, I would argue, also fall into the category of a class with immutable characteristics who are often attacked based on those characteristics. Thus, even though the Supreme Court has not recognized them as a protected class, certainly individual governments are within their rights to do so.

However, the entire basis of "hate crime" legislation is completely inapplicable to the "homeless," as a broad category. Since when is that a discrete and -immutable- characteristic? Are we next going to enact special legislation to protect pedestrians from "hate" crimes because pedestrians are more likely to be attacked than drivers?

I'm not saying that it's acceptable to beat up homeless people. There are good old regular laws on the books that protect all of us from being viciously attacked in the streets. But that's a far cry away from declaring them a special protected class.

[Anonymous]

I do not think your definition (discrete and immutable) is generally accepted. For instance, religion is not immutable. And some might argue that sexual orientation is not immutable, although I am not here to debate that.

The law creates classes that are protected, but it does not define a principle that unites them (at least the legislation I am not familiar with).

However, the FBI once quoted the APA definition as this: ""...not only is it an attack on one's physical self, but is also an attack on one's very identity." Attacks upon individuals because of a difference in how they look, pray or behave have long been a part of human history. It is only recently, however, that our society has given it a name and decided to monitor it, study it and legislate against it."