Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So what you're saying is that it was okay before to commit these crimes like because the INTENT not addressed and this law encompases that making it no longer okay.
The crime listed below along with crime against Matthew Shepard who was tied to a fence, beat and left to die because of his was gay, and James Byrd, a Texas man who was brutally murdered by being dragged behind a pickup truck because he was African American, all were okay before because well, they weren't crimes since they involved the hate as the intent.
Two years after son's death, mother finds solace in hate crimes bill - CNN.com
So your logic to me, in it's simplest form means, since the intent was hate the crime itself was okay before.
In your explanation of using the court system, how about the DA did a shitty job and didn't prosecute the actual crime properly? |
this is ridiculous, cyn. I'm really surprised at this stretch coming from you.
dippin pretty much encapsulated my thinking on hate crimes legislation and why it is of benefit to our justice system. I always find the best way to comprehend the difference between crime and hate crime is to look at one of the less violent forms of crime that can incorporate hate and that is vandalism. Is it not obvious that there is a broad difference in intent between someone who spray paints graffiti on a subway car and someone who spray paints swastikas in a Jewish cemetary? Think about the difference in mindset behind each act. If you believe the latter should be punished more severely than the former, then you cannot not carry it through to punishment for the perpetration of violent crimes. They are NOT the same thing.