Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Are you really going to tell me that the intent isn't important? You're going to tell me the ends of the crime are the only thing we should look at? If that's the case, then what you're proposing would suggest that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder (a point I've already made, but something you didn't address). Do you think that involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder should be punished the same?
|
You picked a bad example, since involuntary manslaughter is just that -- involuntary. First degree murder and first degree murder committed due to the criminal's hatred of homosexuals is still first degree murder and should be punished equally and harshly.
I do
not want to criminalize bigotry or ignorance.
In matters of self-defense (since I am also a gun-owner as well as a conceal-carry licensee) the issue is still relatively simple if you take into consideration the FACTS surrounding a self-defense slaying. Often those who kill in self-defense are not even charged / taken in for questioning because it is so clearly not murder.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Right, right. I'm with you. But a "thought crime" is no longer a simple idea in the mind of the person committing it, when they are in the process of committing it. I agree, the government doesn't have the right to stop the KKK, or Fred Philps, Black Panthers, etc. from voicing their opinions, no matter how ugly and disgusting they are. But if a white kills a black merely because of race, it isn't "thought crime" anymore. It's something else entirely. Its a hate crime, done because of contempt for what the person is, not what the person has done.
|
"Hate crime" is relatively new terminology. It has not existed forever and is not an absolute. What it is, is a perversion of the examination of intent when it comes to crimes, and even prosecution. It is shamelessly "playing the race card" when it should not even be in consideration. If I were an omnipotent embodiment of "The Law" the intent of someone would matter little to me in the face of the law-breaking. If someone stole bread from a bakery to feed his starving children, he is still a thief. If someone kills a mexican homosexual because he is a bigoted ass, he is still a murderer. Punish for the crime, not the "thought" which he may have used to justify it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
If you had another non-heterosexual friend, and someone kills them simply because they were non-heterosexual, and the murderer had never met your friend before, would you be willing to simply categorize it as first or second degree murder? Even though this person was a saint in your eyes, the nicest person you'll ever meet, it wouldn't bother you that they were targeted just for being non-heterosexual?
|
I fail to see the importance of making a distinction in law between someone who kills a) for money to support their drug habit, or b) "cuz dem faggots was askin' fer it." They both are murder and both should carry a
heavy sentence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
It's a play on emotions, I know, but the point is still valid.
|
"Hate crime" distinctions themselves are a play on emotions. They're not logical and reasonable things to consider when trying to judge innocence or guilt of the commission of a crime. So, I don't really see the "point as valid" but instead as proof of how far separated "hate crime" legislation is from a reasonable and objective system of law.