Apparently the only crime worthy of execution is killing a cop.

Because killing a cop threatens everyone cops protect.

The trouble with liberals like Mr. Goldman is that they don’t really try very hard to understand how the world works. They just know that there’s some sounds-good-fast bullshit complaint lying there, and they are not going to miss the opportunity to complain about it.

Done right, the criminal law punishes in proportion to danger, not enormity. Pedophiles are awful people, but their existence does not deter people from becoming parents or children in a way that threatens society at large. But we need cops, so a criminal law that reduces the risks of being one makes eminent sense.

Some people believe hate crimes should not be punished as such, because the underlying act is “already a crime.” Burning down a building is a crime, they argue. Why should the penalty change if the building is a place of worship? The answer is simple: burning down a building is a crime, but terrorizing a community is a different crime. People who would burn down a business for insurance money pose a different threat to us all than people who would burn down a church. The church-bomber is not being punished for “bad thoughts,” but for the danger posed by a demonstrated willingness to put those thoughts into action.

Perjury is another example. Lying under oath is a crime, but the punishment in some states is matched to the crime lied about, because the perjurer is ipso facto a co-conspirator with the criminal. A person who would lie about a big crime is more dangerous to society than one who would lie about a little one.

So, yes, killing a cop is different from other crimes, but killing a cop is a meta crime, a crime against the law against crime. Such crimes should be the most severely punished of all. And if Mr. Goldman didn’t hate cops — which is not a crime, but is stupid and dangerous in a way we cannot punish except by calling it out— that would he obvious to him.