Editorial
Kaua'i incident points to reality of hate crime

What happened to a group of campers on Kaua'i over the weekend would normally have passed as a routine, if terrifying, incident of mindless crime.

The campers were attacked and harassed and efforts were made to set their camp on fire. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured, but the terror was real enough.

So, too, was the crime. Those who were arrested after the incident face attempted-murder charges.

But based on police and witness reports, this crime takes on a more disturbing tone. The campers were part of a gay-pride celebration, and the attackers went out of their way to taunt them with anti-gay slurs, making a point to rip down their gay-pride banners.

It was, in the words of Kaua'i police, a hate crime.

Today, that definition has no particular legal meaning. But Gov. Cayetano has said he intends to sign a bill out of the 2001 Legislature that specifically defines hate crime and creates extra penalties on felony offenders who target their victims on the basis of their sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, disability or ethnicity.

This new law is valuable insofar as it gives legal structure to a particularly heinous form of criminal activity: causing harm to people simply on the basis of who they are or because they are particularly vulnerable in society.

In short, it gives prosecutors a tool to up the ante when a crime appears particularly senseless or where danger to society is particularly great.

As with other enhanced-sentencing laws, the hate-crime law would not obligate judges to apply extended sentencing. And this is good. Ultimately, decisions about the severity and type of punishment should be made by the person presiding at trial, not arbitrarily by statute.

We have too many mandatory sentencing laws on the books already.

But as a tool to recognize and deal with particular danger, the hate-crimes law will add an efficient tool to law enforcement's arsenal.

In the case of the Kaua'i attack, the hate-crimes law will not apply. It cannot be imposed retroactively.

But the incident, if it occurred as police and witnesses describe, surely suggests that such a law is needed.

The foremost duty of law enforcement is simply to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the attack occurred. If the evidence shows that it was motivated by hate, the new law gives judge and jury an extra tool to demonstrate that such hate will not be tolerated in this society.