Hate Crime Laws Appropriate

To the editors:

Regarding "Hate Crimes Too Broad" (Dissent, Oct. 14) and the letters in the Oct. 19 Crimson: Unfortunately, long before Matthew Shepard's murder, conservative groups around the country mobilized against hate crime laws. They base their opposition on a number of myths:

1. "Hate crime laws apply only to `special groups." In fact, every American receives protection. Hate crime statutes criminalize acts committed because the victim is different from the perpetrator. Thus, Christians attacked because they are Christian are as likely as Jews or Muslims to be protected by the law. Whites are protected just as much as minorities; heterosexuals are as protected as homosexuals.

2. "Hate crime laws violate the First Amendment." Hate crime laws don't punish constitutionally protected free speech, only acts. Moreover, using the words of a perpetrator to establish motive is neither new nor irregular. Criminal law has always taken into account the motivation of an offender.

3. "There is no reason to increase the penalty on crimes which are already punished." Crimes motivated by hate are significantly different from other offenses, and they are far more violent. Research suggests that assaults motivated by hate are three times more likely than other assaults to require hospital treatment.

4. "You can't legislate tolerance. Prejudice is part of human nature." A victim who is attacked because he or she is black, Jewish or gay often thinks "Does everyone in this community despise me?" That is because hate crimes are designed to send the message "We don't want you here." Hate crime laws send back an important message of hope and support to the victim, and a strong message to potential perpetrators that hate-mongering will not be tolerated. JOHN ANTHONY MELSON   Bettendorf, Iowa, Oct. 19, 1998