this is not a hate crime

this is really interesting from the perspective of criminal law. and really sad as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html

my gut rebels and thinks that this case should have been found to be a hate crime. i can guess on a juror reasoning that it was not her sexuality that was offensive, but only the answer to the bigger question of whether or not they thought what she had shared with them was dishonest. killing for treachery is not a hate crime. but i would assume treachery wouldn't have been an issue if she were not her age, if she were perhaps not a virgin if she had said she was, if she were anything at all other than biologically male. though admittedly, those weren't their questions. so i'm not sure how to reason it out. the thing is, in even the most honest part of her mind, it isn't treachery. there has to be some way to protect the fact that she thought that way.

my friend at work brought up the important point that premeditation might be required for a crime to be classified as a hate crime. or rather, a pre-existing desire to harm those you hate. to me this would be highly useless. well actually i'm kind of torn about it. for one, this pre-meditation is nearly impossible to prove (this is however useful in protecting the idea that you're innocent until proven guilty). and on the other hand, when do you really get to manifest your hatred of a certain group of people until you interact with them?