AlanShearer wrote:
Perseus wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Personally, I fucking hate the concept of hate crimes legislation. Somehow, if this guy ran over pedestrians because he's a psycho, it's better than if he did it because he didn't like their skin color. Ridiculous.
I agree. We judge peoples actions. Their motives only matter in determining if something was an accident, or if it was a premeditated crime.
That's ridiculous. We punish motives all the time, for reasons that go beyond whether something was an accident or premeditated.
For example, how should the abused spouse who deliberately and with premeditation hires a hitman to kill her husband in order to stop the abuse be punished as opposed to the same actions but motivated entirely by greed?
This isn't the only example. The list could go on. People are punished differently every day, and a primary factor in determining the level of punishment is the motivation underlying the crime.
I think you know very well that accommodating the concept of self defense is substantially different from the concept at play with hate crimes.
Hate crimes legislation, as far as I can tell, typically considers hate thought motivation as an aggravating circumstance. And as far as I can tell, it's pretty much the only aggravating or mitigating circumstance that relies entirely on an assessment of what the accused was thinking when he committed the crime. Typically, aggravating factors are things like taking a leadership role in the crime, being a repeat offender, or attacking a particularly vulnerable victim. Typically, mitigating factors are pretty much the opposite. Minor role in the crime, the victim had culpability as well, lack of prior record, etc.
It seems like only "hate crimes" factors are specifically about the emotional reason behind the crime.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)