|
geep, you stated that the dog claimed he "would have robbed someon else" anyway.
You also state that there appears to be evidence that the dog robbed the cat solely on the basis that he was a cat.
Then you wonder who should decide and whether arbitrary application would be dangerous.
As in all criminal trials where the defendant does not admit the crime, a jury will decide whether the evidence is proof of a hate crime or not--citizens are the final "check" of legislation and they "draw the boundary."
It is not "intrinsically dangerous" (this danger is not a necessary component of the jury process nor is it built-in to it) but arbitrary application should be minimized--as it should be in any jury trial and not just "hate" cases.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|