Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
No, I'm saying that there is a system in place to allow for mitigating or aggravating circumstances, why further it with some sort of obfuscation like race, creed, or sexual orientation.
I take great umbrage to be treated differently, both in the scope of law and outside of the scope of law. Either we're all equal or we're not. It can't be that some are more equal than others.
|
But, again, this is bullshit. Hate crimes doesn't make people unequal. It doesn't give extra protection for anyone. It addresses intent, not the type of the victim.
Let's go over the examples again:
is spray painting a swastika in a jewish neighborhood the same as painting the subway car? Because without hate crimes legislation they are treated the same.
Is beating a gay man someone just happened to come across the same as a beating that comes from a fight over say, a girlfriend? Because both can claim the "heat of the moment" argument.
Those are qualitatively different crimes, and therefore should be treated differently.
Our laws recognize the differences in intent only when it comes to premeditation and malice against a specific person. Hate crimes legislation prevents people from using the heat of the moment argument to reduce sentences.
There is a reason why hate crime legislation was upheld unanimously. As the unanimous decision in that case stated. "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."