In his June 6 letter arguing against hate-crime laws, William Vaughan Jr. cites the case of an unfortunate gentleman shot while walking to his Land Rover. Mr. Vaughan questions why this does not qualify as a hate crime, claiming that all who drive expensive cars may now feel threatened.

To arrive at this position, Mr. Vaughan has to step outside of history and ignore the centuries-long violence that has been wreaked upon those whose skin color, sexual orientation or religion has placed them within a despised minority.

When the Ku Klux Klan raped and lynched untold thousands of their African-American neighbors, their intent was to terrorize the entire African-American community. All who shared the victims’ skin color were to know they could be subject to the same treatment at any time.

There is no historical record of people driving expensive cars being systematically brutalized and murdered for their automotive choices. If there were, Mr. Vaughan might have an argument, though he would still have to contend with the fact that many who fall into the hate-crimes victim category have no choice in their ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

There is, however, a record – long and bloody – of what has happened to people whose sexual orientation doesn’t match the majority’s sexual orientation, whose skin color or religion doesn’t match the majority’s, or in the case of women who are sexually harassed and assaulted, who do not share in the respect and power granted to – or seized by – their assailants.

Within their historical context, then, hate-crime laws are both right and just. A crime against any individual that also extends to an entire community deserves a punishment that matches the crimes.

LeRoy Mottla

Peaks Island