Post a response to this discussion thread
Richard,
To say that "these hypotheticals cannot happen in the legal system that we have" is a bold statement and one that can hardly be proven or backed up. Especially because you are talking about the future.
Then, you actually gave me an example of the misuse of "hate crime" definitions. You said, "You don't call someone that name unless it's inspired by bigotry, and you don't make an issue of your victim's identity as a Jew (or an African-American or a gay or a Swede or a Serb or a woman or whatever) unless it's part of your purpose in committing the assault."
I absolutely disagree with this. There are many reasons to mention a person's ethnic heritage. They are not all reasons inspired by bigotry, either. As I mentioned earlier, it might be simply a tactic to offend your sense of racial tolerance. If I know that a racial slur will get under your skin, and I want to get under your skin, I may well use a racial slur. To assume that clearly means bigotry is an easy generalization, and I think a dangerous one to make. Again, you are using indicators (words) as absolutes and I do not think we have the ability to accurately make such a judgement.
As for proving a hate motive, I would tend to think that any assault is driven by hatred. The question is, do you consider it an acceptable brand of hatred (poor vs. rich) or unacceptable (white vs. black)?
A quote:
"Your claim that hate crimes will lessen punishment for non-hate crimes is not true. Pure and simple. "
That claim was not made in the spirit you are presenting it. I simply said that measurement is relative. If crime X is given two separate punishments solely because one instance was race motivated, then one punishment is greater than the other is. In math terms:
Punishment A > Punishment B. Therefore, Punishment B is less than punishment A. That does not mean that B has been lessened. It may have always been (for example) a life in prison term. It does mean that it is "less" than A.
Finally, you claim I made 'a "fallacy of danger" argument that does not respond to how the law really works.' Well, how does the law "really" work? Crime is rampant. America is the "murder" capital of the world. Prison population is at an all time high and growing steadily. One could argue that the reality is that the law DOES NOT WORK.
My belief that we should quit legislating morality and start going after the hard crimes has yet to be attempted by the "real" law system.
Post a response to this discussion thread