On Thursday, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill extending the scope of hate crime legislation to include crimes perpetrated due to the victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, according to The Associated Press. In typical congressional fashion, it was attached to an unrelated defense-spending bill, H.R. 2647.

While I think it is clear that all people, regardless of their identity, ought to be protected from attack, this recent legislation and hate crime laws in general deserve a second look.

One potential problem with hate crime laws is that they inappropriately expand the power and domain of the federal government. It is true that when a state or local government does not adequately respond to a crime because of the victim’s identity and thereby fails to protect a citizen’s rights, it seems natural that the federal government would step in.

The justification for federal involvement in other cases is flimsy at best. The bill itself includes arguments that rely on typical “interstate commerce” abuse, as if the fact that people assaulted based on aspects of their identity are rendered unable to participate in such commerce. Also cited is the fact that such crimes take place in many states, as if that were an argument for federal intervention.

The scope of these laws is extraordinary, as well. H.R. 2647 states the federal government may take action when “a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice,” which is extremely vague and seems to allow for someone to be prosecuted at the federal level if that person’s punishment at the state level is not as harsh as the federal government would like.

The Associated Press reports that some Republicans objected to the bill on the grounds that it created “thought crimes” and would prevent free expression, especially by religious leaders. Although the bill does not ban bias or hateful speech directed toward people with certain sexual preferences or gender identities, it seems that the Republicans do have a point in one sense.

Hate crime laws do not prohibit thoughts per se but do seek to punish a connection between certain thoughts and actions. Therefore, prosecutors have to show that an action took place and that there was a specific kind of motivation.

Once the prosecutor establishes the assault took place, the case would rest upon the ability of the prosecutor to show that the defendant hates homosexuals or is racist or is sexist, etc. The defendant’s thoughts, in effect, would be put on trial. This extremely frightening reality, along with the modern tendency of prosecutors to charge a suspect with as much as possible and see what “sticks,” should be enough to make us extremely wary of hate crime legislation.

Send Noah hateful messages at nnzarr@asu.edu.