Quote:
Originally posted by geep
I think the point Lebell was trying to make was that adding sentences to existing crimes for "hate" makes other victims of the same crime less than victims of the "hate" crimes. Am I right?
|
I understood exactly what he was claiming. Do you notice how inconsistent your view is with how our law has historically and currently works?
Using that same logic, you would have to conclude that victims of spontaneous murder are less important than when their attackers planned it beforehand because we have two different crimes and punishment for those, as well.
If I hit you with a bat out of malice and you can prove it in court then I will have a more severe charge and sentence than if I had merely hit you because I was angry or even without feeling--accidental or in self-defense.
Our legal system is based on the intent and what we are arguing over in terms of what constitutes "thought" in regards to the offender--how violently did he or she violate our social norms. It is not about justice between a victim and offender--that's the role of civil lititgation. Criminal trials are purely between the state and offender.
I would be very surprised if either of you have had extensive experience with the criminal infrastructure. If you don't have personal experience, how do you get your information--from the movies, media, rumor, perceptions, etc.
The legal system is a codified struggle over values and beliefs--thoughts. Whether you like it or not, the people in charge of the legal structure create legislation that controls actions and thoughts--we learn society's norms via people close to us, educators, distant relations (work, friends, etc), and also the law.
Hate crime legislations is not some new, liberal attempt to control thought.