“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell from his novel “Animal Farm”

I feel like it should be noted as a major accomplishment to write a column on government for more than two years without breaking out this old chestnut from Mr. Orwell.

The bottlecap had to be twisted off at some point, though, so let’s make it this week.

The Alabama State Senate is considering a bill that would automatically upgrade an assault charge from the third-degree level to the second-degree level if the person assaulted is a current or former public official. The assault must be connected to an action the public official did as part of his or her job, however.

In other words, if someone who was elected or appointed to a position in government is assaulted based on something like a vote on a piece of legislation or a decision to fire an employee, the charge is automatically upgraded from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony.

A class A misdemeanor carries a punishment of up to a year in jail and up to a $6,000 fine while a class C felony carries a punishment of one to 10 years in jail and up to a $15,000 fine.

There are several factors that go into how to classify an assault charge, but the gist of this bill is if I pushed down or punched a random person on the sidewalk, I would likely be charged with the misdemeanor.

If I did the same to a county commissioner because he or she voted against repaving the road that runs by my house, I would be charged with the more serious felony.

That scenario cuts straight to the heart of my argument. Why should the person I assault because he has been talking behind my back or owes me money receive a different level of restitution than a public official for whom I dial up a German suplex for raising my taxes?

To be fair, there is a legitimate thought process behind trying to discourage people from attacking public officials.

If the punishment for political violence is too lax, then the weak consequences might encourage more people to turn to violence, an impulse which should always be restrained.

The problem is that line of thinking could, and maybe should, be applied to all types of violence, not just as a special carveout for public officials.

If the sentencing guidelines are too narrow for judges to apply a proper punishment based on the circumstances of an assault, then expand those guidelines but have the same rules apply to everyone. This is why we have ranges for sentencing to begin with.

The other problem with these types of laws is determining intent.

Let’s say I get into a heated argument with the district attorney for refusing to charge my crooked business partner with a crime after I believe he stole money from me. The district attorney calls me a jerk – or another word of heightened emphasis – and my right fist happens to catch his left cheek.

Did I punch him because of his insult or because I am upset about his decision in his official capacity as a public official?

How I answer that question or how angry the district attorney is at me may make a huge difference in my punishment should this bill pass into law. Moreover, I may not even have a full understanding of my prevailing motivation to go full-on Rocky Marciano in that moment.

The general problem I have with protecting particular classes of people under criminal law is these types of laws make a determination that, while everyone should be equal under the law, some segments of the population are more equal than others.

Those who attack or harass other people because of their profession, their skin color, their lifestyle choices, or their religion should receive the same punishment as those who attack or harass others because someone rejected their romantic advances, snitched on them, will not give them money or is merely physically weaker.

The gravity of the crime should determine the severity of the sentence and not whether a box can be checked based on the characteristics of the victim. It is scary to be attacked or harassed no matter the motivation.

Having said all that, maybe I am thinking about this in the wrong way. If we continue down this path, eventually everyone will have to fall into some category of a protected population. When everyone is special then maybe everyone is equal.