why is Dylann Roof charged with Federal Crimes

Factual Questions
21

So terrorism clauses are tacked on to make me, a non-terrorist, feel safer.

Oooo boy!

22

No, the U.S. judicial system has a gradated system of judging the intent, if any, behind an act. We have (depending on jurisdiction) different levels of punishment for people found guilty of killing another person by negligent homicide, voluntary manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, etc.–the different types of crime depending in part on intent. We also single out some crime victims for special consideration–for example assaulting a police officer, versus simple assault. Hate crime laws intensify punishment for a crime based on intent and status of the victim.

23

I think it’s more accurate to say that hate crime statutes enhance punishment based on motive, not intent. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it’s rarer in the law than you’re suggesting.

And keep in mind that anyone can be the victim of a hate crime. It’s more a matter of the relative status between criminal and victim.

The menace idea has a certain appeal, but the problem is that lots of anonymous street crime can create a sense of menace in an entire community. Lots of New Yorkers in the 1970s were scared to go out at night, but does that make every mugging a hate crime?

All of that said, whatever the gray areas might be at the margins, I have no trouble placing Roof at the center of what the statute is meant to punish.

24

Uh, no. They’re not for deterrence, they’re not to make you “feel safer”, etc.

They’re to punish acts of oppression and intimidation and terror that are committed in conjunction with the violent deeds per se.

I’m puzzled about what aspect of this you’re finding it so hard to understand or are just outright rejecting. Do you not agree that, say, destroying a building as an act of terrorism is a worse crime than destroying a building just because you think explosions are fun?

25

There is no identifiable “point.” It’s a political decision. It’s about the Feds wanting to MAKE a point, like “we won’t put up with shit like this.”