Post a response to this discussion thread
1. Re hate crimes:
You've got it exactly right. The thing is that, for most people, religion is something (a) that they were born with or (b) that people might well hold them to even after they've given it up. (This latter tendency is especially true of Jews -- a good many Jews are agnostics, some become Catholics, others become born-again Protestants, but when the hate-crime crosshairs focus on them it's because they once were Jews.) And, in answer to your question about Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, attacking them on the basis of their religion would constitute a hate crime, almost certainly. (And I have to admit that they drive me crazy too; I live in Brooklyn Heights, which is their capital, so to speak.)
2. As for sexual preference, that's statutory rather than constitution, true enough, but one could make a strong argument based on constitutional privacy doctrine that protects some (but not yet all) intimate private behavior that sexual preference gets constitutional protection that way. We're getting there; we've come a long way from BOWERS v. HARDWICK to ROMER v. EVANS in less than a decade. Moreover, if there is indeed a "gay gene," that might well take sexual preference out of the realm of choice into the realm of "can't help" which would ratchet up the factors on the side of affording it constitutional protection.
2a. As for other sexual behaviors, well, in the case of pedophilia or bestiality, the concept of consent becomes key -- can both parties consent to the sexual behavior? Obviouisly, in the case of necrophilia one "party" is beyond all capacity to consent (unless you believe in seances or Ouija boards), but that's beside the point.
3. Glad to oblige re slander/libel. Sorry that it wasn't clear before.
4. Your example contrasting a hate-crime murderer with a child murderer doesn't work. As a practical matter, I can assure you that child murderers are the most loathed criminals in the criminal justice system, and they get the maximum sentence. Moreover, once they're inside, the other inmates tend to be extremely rough on child murderers -- it's a weird hierarchy in prison, you see, and curiously incarcerated violent criminals have extremely conventional standards of morality. They *hate* child murderers (and really hate child sex murderers). Often the poor bastards end up dead and nobody can figure out what happened.
5. I smoked a pipe for a year (Sherlock Holmes and all that) but I haven't touched a pipe or cigar or cigarette in over 20 years. I drink rarely -- maybe one glass of wine every two weeks or one beer or one hard drink, if that. For Passover I had more alcoholic drinks in one week than I had in the previous two months or so. I've only smoked marijuana three times in my life, hated it each time (honestly did not know how to inhale the first time), and haven't touched it in 20 years. I've never used any hard drugs, and wouldn't if you paid me. (I have a tenuous enough grasp on reality as it is.)
6. Would you please clarify your question about victimless crime and alcohol? As I understand it, if you drive recklessly for example, and that's attributable to drinking and it's proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the penalties ratchet up very quickly and harshly. The only time you have the reverse effect is for crimes where the prosecution must prove specific intent, for alcohol clouds the ability to form intent.
Post a response to this discussion thread