Are hate crimes statutes necessary? During the second debate of the recent presidential campaign, George W. Bush was asked this question, and specifically about the murder of a black man in Texas who was tied to the back of a car and dragged till dead.

Mr. Bush stated that the perpetrators had received the death penalty. How much more severe could a punishment be? Any additional laws would be superfluous. End of discussion. (By the way, two of the perpetrators were sentenced to death, the third got life). True, in the case of murder, it's hard to imagine punishing anybody any more severely than Texas law already allows.

The Texas dragging incident was, thankfully, a rare incident these days. Most hate crimes are not nearly as severe. More typical is somebody being jumped and beaten upon leaving a building, a brick through a window, or racist slogans painted on the victim's front door.

While they are not as severe as the cases that make the national news (they often barely make the local news), they are a serious problem. This is not random crime, but premeditated assaults on people and property.

There is a great difference between a bar fight that spontaneously erupts over a girl and laying in wait to attack a stranger because of a group they belong to. The criminal in the second case poses a far greater danger to society, and should pay a far greater price.

Trying an incident like that without hate crimes laws, however, often leads to charges of simple assault, and maybe a weekend spent picking up litter as the punishment. And the following weekend the racist winds up targeting another black man, or gay man, or Jew, or Asian, or whatever, to beat the crap out them for the simple reason that he doesn't like them.

There is also a great difference between desecrating a house of worship and painting graffiti on a highway overpass. In this case the first criminal poses a greater risk to the security and safety of the community. But without hate crimes legislation they are both charged under the same vandalism statute, and perhaps jail time is avoided altogether.

Let's get one thing clear: No law can make a racist change his or her ways. The purpose of hate crimes legislation is not to end hate. That simply can't be done. You cannot coerce tolerance. The purpose is to punish the violence that often stems from hate. Hate crimes laws do not and cannot fight discrimination. They fight violence and hopefully serve as a deterrent against further racist violence.

You certainly have the right to hate people. With a free press, you even have the right to talk about your hatred, and try to influence others to share your views. What you do not have the right to do is to deprive other citizens of their rights, their property, their well-being, or their life.

Let's set the record straight on another point: Hate crimes laws do not punish people for their thoughts. They punish criminals for their actions. It is another tool a prosecutor can use to help get violent criminals who are likely to be repeat offenders off our streets. The ability to use hate crimes statutes helps to prove intent, premeditation, and conspiracy. And get convictions.

Many of you are probably asking, "Aren't hate crimes laws giving special rights and protection to only a small group?" Let me ask you something. Did the Voting Rights Act convey "special privileges" to certain groups? Of course not, and the answer is the same for hate crimes legislation.

Civil rights laws, including hate crimes statutes, exist to uphold the rights of every citizen, and to prosecute those would deny their fellow citizens their rights.

"But," I hear some of you saying, "it's not fair the way it doesn't protect white people from being attacked." It is true that there may be some cases where violence is committed against a Christian white heterosexual male simply because he belongs to that group. And I would agree that in those cases hate crimes laws should be applied.

But, as far as I know, there are no nationally organized hate groups advocating large-scale violence against Christian white heterosexual males. As far as I can tell, there are no heavily armed militias training to kill any Christian white heterosexual males who refuse to go back where they came from. If you have evidence of such groups, please let me know.

There's a larger problem here that hate crimes laws are addressing. While we've made great strides towards the elimination of prejudice in our society, and while most people truly are well-meaning and free of such hate, there are also militias training for race wars against anybody of color, there are active KKK chapters burning crosses and worse, there are groups of skin-heads worshipping Adolph Hitler, and there is a clear and present danger to any group that is seen as a minority or outsider population.

Yes, motive counts. And the motive behind hate crimes is intimidation. The racist wants to intimidate not only the victim, but other members of the victim's group. The crime is not committed against an individual, but against an entire community. The perpetrator wants all members of the target group to know that they're not welcome, and that they're not safe.

Hate crimes statutes turn that message around. Hate crimes laws tell the racists that their goals are not welcome, and that they won't be tolerated. Now, how can you argue with that?