A new bill, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, comes up before the House Judiciary Committee this week. It would federalize almost all crimes that result in "bodily injury" if the assailants was motivated by hate based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability.

Most federal judges reportedly oppose the bill because it would federalize crimes already being prosecuted in state courts. Other critics point out that there is no epidemic of hate crimes justifying federal legislation. Legal scholars debate how and by what standards a motivation of hate can be established.

• Forty-one states have their own hate-crime statutes and experts report that every state aggressively prosecutes "bodily injury" incidents -- regardless of skin color.

• In their new book, "Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics," James B. Jacobs and Kimberley Potter examine the statistics used to support the contention that there is a "hate crime epidemic" and find them sorely lacking -- if not entirely bogus.

• They conclude that "conspicuously absent are the data to support the claim that hate crime is increasing."

Finally, critics point out that the doctrine of dual sovereignty permits the federal government to prosecute a defendant even if he has been acquitted in state court -- and vice versa. When federal criminal jurisdiction is minimal, double jeopardy is confined to cases such as bank robbery and narcotics sales. But when federal criminal jurisdiction is broad -- as when a considerable share of the population is considered "disabled" -- then double jeopardy becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Those who question the legal validity of the entire hate crimes concept are fond of a Clarence Darrow quote: "There is no such crime as a crime of thought; there are only crimes of action."