Michael Lorrey wrote,
>The problem with making speech like this criminal is that
>it turns every domestic violence situation into a hate crime, typically
>by both parties.
Agreed. I have only heard one rationale for hate crimes that even
makes sense, and even then I don't know if it is a good
implementation.
The question is why should the motivation for a crime make the
punishment worse? The answer was that perpetrators of hate crimes
are more likely to repeat the offense. A man who finds another man
in bed with his wife and kills him, may be unlikely to find himself
in that same situation in the future. Whereas the KKK member who
lynches a random black man as a signal to the community is probably
more likely to be a threat in the future. The premeditation factor
increases the severity of the crime, like premeditated murder is
worse than involuntary manslaughter. Likewise, the choosing of a
stranger from a target makes future crimes more likely. Also, the
targeting function adds a factor of terrorism into the mix by
identifying a whole group of citizens rather than a specific
individual.
This explanation makes enough sense that I can respect the intent.
However, outlawing motives or thoughts is a slippery slope, however.
Extending it to minor crimes like resisting arrest or insulting a
police officer, seems to be an extreme overreaction. It also seems
unfair to judge a criminal on potential future crimes, although we do
this with pedophiles, drug users and repeat felons.
-- Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:36 MDT