Relevant to who? I think that's my question.
One of the things I remember from law school criminal law courses is that the modern goal of our criminal law system is threefold: punishment and rehabilitation of the offender, deterrence of future crimes, and restitution to the victim and society. Because our offender in this case is dead, punishment and rehabilitation are off the table. Thus, the classification of the crime as a hate crime must somehow be relevant to either deterring future crimes or providing some sort of restitution to the victims and society. In this particular instance, I don't see how either of those goals are furthered by arguing over crime classification ex post mortem.
Perhaps the debate results from a difference in definition of "hate crime." My recollection from law school is that a "hate crime" classification is only relevant in the context of maximum sentencing. The United States Congress (and a majority of states) has decided that crimes against certain specific groups should be subject to special deterring measures because of the nature of the crimes (a lot of which has to do with history) and because of the tendency of these crimes to inflict psychological and emotional damage beyond an ordinary crime (I am not restricting this to murder; a simple assault can be a "hate crime" in some contexts). Because of this decision, conviction of a hate crime element drastically increases maximum sentencing for the perpetrator.
It is unclear whether this particular crime fits Pennsylvania's definition of a "hate crime" (even if it were actually relevant re sentencing the criminal). I don't know their definition, but it's likely that it's not as simple as: "If he did this because he hated women, it's a hate crime." Because the word "hate" can be so subjective, courts and legislatures have had a difficult time crafting definitions of hate that justify the stiff increases in penalty.
You seem to say that since other posters are saying that the perpetrator is dead and will thus receive no earthly penalty for his actions, that this must mean that these posters think his actions weren't a crime. That's not the case at all. I don't mean to put words in other posters' mouths, but this seems to be the logic they're using:
IF the legal (and thus relevant) definition of "hate crime" means an enhancer to an ordinary crime that results in larger penalties, THEN the definition of "hate crime" is only relevant as it is applied to the individual who perpetrated the crime (and may thus be subject to the larger penalties). IF the individual who perpetrated the crime is dead, THEN the state cannot prosecute him. IF the state cannot prosecute him, THEN the legal definition of "hate crime" becomes practically irrelevant because it is only relevant if it can be applied to the perpetrator of the crime (and it can't because he's dead).
If this logic wins out, then classifying it as a hate crime only matters for purposes of keeping score. This doesn't mean what the guy did wasn't a crime (or even a "hate crime"). It means he's no longer subject to the legal definition of "hate crime" because he's dead.
I suppose one could make an argument that the victims of the crime may somehow benefit from the classification of the crime as a hate crime, but beyond the fact that the rules associated with legal "hate crimes" are generally aimed at defendants and not at victims, because the perpetrator is dead he can't make any sort of restitution because of his crime.
Perhaps the classification is somehow useful to instruct people on other ways to solve their problems than by resorting to this kind of crime. If that's the case, then sure it's relevant for that. I just don't know that it's worth spending taxpayer dollars on deciding whether a guy who can't be punished was guilty of a hate crime because it could be useful in an after-school special.
