Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maximusveritas
MrSelfDestruct,
I purposely said "verbally abused" in order to remove any notion of self-defense or fear for her life. It's probably not the best example, but the only reason I gave it was to show that motive, which is the only difference in that case as far as I can see, should be a consideration in determining the harshness of the penalty.
As far as your six examples, I do agree that all 6 should receive equally harsh sentences. However, the reason hate crimes are specifically defined in the law is, as I said before, more for preventative reasons than punitive ones. What's the difference between the examples you listed? It's not that one crime is morally inferior to the other or even that the racists are more likely to commit the crime than the guy who kills a random person on the street.
The difference is that the crimes based on race and political affiliation have widespread social consequences beyond the murder of a single man. To see that, we only need to look back at history, not just here but around the world. When the KKK would lynch a black man, they didn't just do it to hurt a single man, they did it to intimidate the entire black population. And they usually succeeded. That's what's behind hate crime laws and that's why I'm glad they're around.
|
I should clarify that I understand your reasoning and sentiment, but still disagree. However, I thnk that we still may be able to find a common ground. I propose the following:
A lynching or series of lynchings can terrorize a racial group and an entire community or society. Equally, a random, seemingly motiveless killing or series of killings can terrorize a geographic region, as seen in the Washington "sniper" case. The motive there was not racial, nor political, but it terrorized people to the point that many were afraid to be outdoors for any period of time. Crimes like these are equally coercive and terrorizing.
We should simply try those who engage in violence or intimidation with the efect of coercing or terrorizing others, as terrorists, regardless of motive. I see those who do so as acting in a similar manner, but on a smaller scale, to those who would attack a country for failing to agree with thier ideology. On the same level, I feel that if we can justify prosecuting a 13-year-old for an act of terrorism for shooting a school bus with a BB gun, or do the same to someone who sets off a string of fireworks in a public place and causes a panic, then it follows that if someone attacks a random person in a quiet neighborhood and leaves his neighbors afraid to allow their children, then that person is no less guilty than a jihadist who screams "Death to America" and opens fire in a crowded mall and kills someone, creating panic and leaving the city in a state of fear as people anticipate future attacks.
Do you consider this line of reasoning acceptable? If not, do you consider it rational?
My personal belief regarding personal liberty, responsibility, and accountability is that while society should judge a person's action based on motives, legal action should focus strictly on the consequences of those actions. Allow me, for a moment, to beat the proverbial dead horse. While I consider shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to be idiotic, and deserving of chastisement from the community, I feel that the act itself need not be a crime, only that the legal system find the actor accountable for the results. If the result is simply an orderly evacuation, then the actor owes restitution to each evacuee for his or her cost of admission and any refreshments left behind, and the theater revenue of which he deprived the establishment, and the cost of dispatching emergency services under false pretenses. If anyone is harmed due to trampling, pushing, exhaustion, or any other circumstances arising from a disorderly evacuation, the actor who caused this disorder should be held responsible for any medical costs arising from this situation in addition to any restitution already owed to others becasue of his action. Similarly, if any property is damaged as a result of his action, he should be held responsible for paying a replacement value equal to what the owner or an insurance company would be expected to pay for such damage, in addition to anything he owes. I could go on, but I think my point has been made, and that it illustrates the thought process through which I have formed my opinion regarding "hate crime" legislation.