Louis Newstrom wrote,
> Hi Harvey! I thnk this is the first time I have responded to
> something you
> wrote on the web instead of in person, but I think the rest of the readers
> might be interested.
Don't "thnk" too hard! :-)
For those who haven't met him, Louis is my brother. We are identical mirror
twins, but don't make the mistake of assuming that we probably have the same
politics or attitudes. Despite some of the discussions around here,
genetics don't dictate everything.
> From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> > I also think you have an inflated idea of what a hate crime is. Hate
> crimes
> > give tougher sentences on criminals who commit violent crimes. They do
> not
> > arrest people for mere words or ideas.
>
> I would disagree with this. The hate crime law does not give tougher
> sentences based on the violence of the crime. They give tougher sentences
> based on what the perp was thinking.
I agree that the sentence is based on what the perp was thinking. More
specifically, they give tougher crimes based on "intent". This is the same
as drug laws that punish drug possessors with "intent" to sell. It is hard
to prove intent.
My point was that hate-crime laws are not equal-rights laws. They do not
give extra positive things to minorities. Instead, they give extra negative
things to criminals. It would be more direct to argue whether criminals
deserve these harsher sentences rather then to argue whether minorities
deserve the "perks".
The original comment I was referencing claimed that hate crimes laws equaled
extra rights for gays or blacks. Hate-crime laws were raised as an example
of how gays are getting more rights than straights under equal-rights laws.
My point was that these are not equal rights laws, they are tougher
sentencing laws. They do not give anything to gays or blacks. They give
something (negative) to convicted criminals.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT