TFS Magnum welcomes comments - be nice or be gone
1984
Good book, and good comment. Make assault illegal and leave it at that. Judges have always had the right to consider a criminals motivations when determining punishment. That's where that determination belongs -- not in the legislative branch.
Good post!
I HATE the concept of hate crimes. (LOL, does that make me a hate criminal?).
Seriously, though, if an attacker caves in someone's skull to alleviate boredom, because they victim isn't wearing deodorant or because the attacker dislikes their race, gender, religion or sexual preferences, the end result is still the same. What difference can it possibly make as to WHY they did it? All that matters is that it was done on purpose. Punish accordingly.
Frankly, while it is narrow minded, stupid and debilitating, people should be free to hate whoever they want. The problem isn't in the thought, but in the deed.
There are a couple of cases where the thought does count, but they are special cases:
1. Was the intent to hurt a person? Sometimes a person causes a death by ignorance, rather than intent, such as an accidental shooting.
2. Was the perpetrator in a normal mode of perception? A person who is physically or mentally ill may misinterpret another person's actions as hostile and try to defend themselves against a non-existant threat by attacking.
Which is why each case should be decided on it's merits before deciding on punishment/non=punisment.
Just my opinion.
Willfull intent versus negligence is one thing. This can usually be deduced from the circumstances.
But Hate Crimes attempt to sort one type of willful intent from another. Did he willfully intend to assault because he thought you were Jewish, or just because he was drunk and mean? What piece of evidence would support or destroy such a claim.
And if you are Jewish, how would he defend himself against such a claim?
Hate crimes are punishing people not for what they do - e.g., willful assault - but for what they think. You don't like homophobes so you want to punish them more.
Once you start down that road - controlling what people can think - where do you stop. Hate speech is controls on what used to be Freedom of speech. But who decides? The Bible has been declared hate speech in European countries (or some parts of it anyway.) What if the left decides that saying anything bad about communism - the 100 million people it killed in the 20th Century - is hate speech? What is to stop them?
And yes people have to be able to judge the consequences of their actions - that's why we don't hold children to the same standards as adults.
But what about the junkie who kills someone while high? Are they responsible for their actions? Drunk Drivers are impaired but we hold them responsible.
The point is when you start to allow government to control what you are allowed to say and to think, you are no longer living in a free society. You are living in Orwell's vision of a police state.
When you start to rely on "what was he thinking" you also open the system up to abuse.
In This case the mutant stabbed his victim 11 times and pleaded guilt to Involuntary Manslaughter. I'm sorry, but if you stab someone 11 times, you meant to kill them. The sentence in this case was 20 months - less than 2 years. Is this Justice?
Commenting by HaloScan
