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? |
Who said anything about anything being ok? Being charged with a hate crime doesn't dismiss the other counts.
But the fact is that the law already recognizes the importance of intent. Murder in the first degree is different from murder in the second degree because of intent. Assault in the first degree is different from assault in the second degree because of intent.
And without hate crime legislation, prejudice was being used to reduce sentences. I.e., the crime wasn't premeditated, it was a heat of the moment thing because the defendant is just so damn prejudiced against that group of people.
---------- Post added at 08:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I love the terrible examples people are providing. Lets compare spray painting subways to defacing graveyards? WTF! These aren't even in the same ballpark.
Lets try something relevant: spray painting a swastika or spray painting an anti-obama image, or an anti-Bush image, or an anti-gay marriage image, or an anti abortion, or pro abortion. Suddenly one or the other can become racist, or homophobic or whatever.
Don't you see how easily this can be politicized? Depending on the political views of the cop and prosecutor you could easily see a easier or worse sentence coming about.
Lets prosecute the ACT of spray painting the subway and not use the subjective views of the cop and prosecutor to punish the act.
|
They aren't in the same ballpark, but the laws dealing with them were the same.
As far as "politicizing" the issue, language is clear about how clear the intent has to be. This whole "but they will accuse anyone who is anti- Obama" is a stretch that hasn't happened and can't happen following the letter of the law.