The smiling man in this image is Satender Singh. Just about a year ago he was taken off life support and died after being assaulted at a Folsom recreation area for dancing with his Indian and Fijian friends in a manner that evidently offended a Russian immigrant who was hanging out in an adjacent space. ∞ Watch Satender and friends dance ∞

Unlike thousands of other brutal assaults that take place every day in the U.S. (many of which also lead to death), this one made national headlines because witnesses reported the “Slavic Evangelical Christian” Russians had shouted anti gay slurs at Satender prior to the single punch that resulted in his death.

The district attorney agreed with many supporters who believed the anti gay slurs implied a hate crime had occurred, and subsequently attached the “special circumstances” designation to the charges–in hopes that the perpetrators would be convicted accordingly, and eligible for Bill SB1234’s harsher sentencing guidelines.

Last week that hope was dashed when a deadlocked jury trying one of the attacker’s associates announced they did not have enough evidence to convict him of a “hate crime,” and instead had found him guilty of lesser crimes, both of which carry slap-on-wrist sentencing guidelines equivalent to those an, e.g., shoplifter might expect.

This latest news has spawned another wave of stories, editorials, etc and refueled the debate over the effectiveness (and fairness) of California’s hate crime legislation. Some people feel such legislation must exist to prevent “hate-oriented crimes,” others do not feel it’s fair that only select “protected classes” are covered by the legislation, while still others question the effectiveness of the law and ponder how to make it more effective.

I think all these opinions are missing the point.

I mourn the death of Ratender just an his closest supporters do. I think the assault was despicable, and I think the attacker should spend a good portion of his life behind bars for his actions. But I also believe this case– particularly the people’s pursuit of hate crime charges against the perpetrators–underscores a much larger problem in the State of California (and most others) and that is this: When the DA is forced to find “special circumstances” to ensure a barbarian like Singh’s attacker pays the proper price for his crime, it is clear we are NOT being tough enough on crime.

Jump outside the box with me for a moment, and ponder this question: Why should the DA have to pursue a “hate crime” charge to make sure someone who savagely attacks another human being is punished appropriately? Hell, take it even further and ponder this one: Why are hate crime bills even necessary? I’ll tell you why: Because the default charges and their maximum sentences SUCK.

Why are our laws discriminating against acts of discrimination? Isn’t that a little oxymoronic?

Let’s get down to brass tacks: What makes one assault more deserving of justice than another? What is the difference between a gay man getting punched in the mouth for being gay, and, e.g., an overweight person getting punched in the mouth for being “fat”? Assault is assault, isn’t it?

When I was in the military, a “friend” who was twice my size had too much to drink one night and swung his fist into my face and broke my nose because I asked him to pay part of our cab fare after returning to our barracks after a night of partying. His crushing right hook sent me crashing to the pavement. I too hit my head as Singh did, and was temporarily knocked out. When I awoke he was standing over me slobbering, threatening to pound me again for “calling [him] a thief ..” and being what he–a Floridan–considered a “California faggot..” It literally took an act of congress to get the Army to prosecute him (my Dad had to contact our congressman and convince him of the nature and severity of the unprovoked assault), because the Army considered the incident the equivalent of “Gis being GI’s.”

To me, I didn’t care what charges they used to prosecute the jerk, I just wanted him to pay the price for attacking me. I also didn’t care what his motivations were for attacking me; that is, I didn’t want him prosecuted for calling me a faggot or accusing him of lying, I wanted him prosecuted for VIOLATING MY CIVIL RIGHTS and ASSAULTING ME. Period.

In my opinion, it all boils down to this: Just as marriages should be treated without prejudice, so should crimes. Just because one crime was fueled by prejudice “A” does not make it any more savage or brutal than another motivated by prejudice “B.” EVERY assault is a violation of one’s civil rights and should be prosecuted without regard for how human prejudice may or may not have played apart in an assault and/or murder. NO ONE should be excused from savagely attacking another human being under any circumstances, unless they are defending themselves or someone else.

Whether it’s rape, assault, murder, armed robbery, or child molestation, the advent of “special circumstances” mean one thing and one thing only: WE ARE WAY TOO EASY ON CRIMINALS IN THIS STATE and sentencing guidelines need to be revised to punish these animals appropriately for their crimes against humanity.

RIP Satender Singh, Matt Shepherd, Medgar Evers, and every person who has been violently murdered because their killer did not agree with their lifestyle, words, style of dress, weight, religion, ethnicity.. or dance moves.