Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Murder in the first degree = Murder in the first degree, regardless of whether it was a wife plotting against her husband for financial gain, or a klan member killing a homosexual out of hate. In both cases there is a lack of respect for human life which should be punished equally.
|
I didn't say that murder in the first did not equal murder in the first. Your statement, however, misses the mark. I stated that murder does not equal murder in the first (one element for that charge, by the way, is premeditation) and supported that with specific examples in the law in which murder does not, in fact, rise to the most heinous form we condemn--intentional, premeditated, and with malice.
Your example of a klansperson who kills someone purely based upon hate wouldn't rise to the level of first degree murder--even though the first one likely would. Various states have enacted legislation to enhance particular murders to rise to the same level of atrocity as murder in the first--namely that killing committed during the commission of another felony is enhanced, or in the vicinity of children, or, in this case, that the victim was chosen for no other reason than a minority group.
The arguments here against hate crime legislation depend upon the claim that it is either thought policing, political correctioness, or that one's state of mind ought to be irrelevant to the charging instrument and/or the ultimate sentence.
My examples indicate that all three of those points are contrary to the long historical application of the law (in regards to taking one's life, in particular) as well as its current state. One's mental state and intent have been and still are determinate factors in the charge as well as the sentence.