It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"It is important not to focus on the actions of any single individual. As residents of Lincoln we must continue to bring our community together to declare that violence and hate are not the values of our city."
Well, see, this is where you or I disagree. I don't think it matters whether he stole the watch because he wanted the watch or because he wanted to make you feel bad about your race. The watch is stolen either way, that's the crime, and that's what should be punishable.
Many people attach this almost metaphysical importance to issues of identity - race, gender, sexual orientation. There is an assumption that somebody's motives based on these things make the crime worse than the motives of somebody stealing (or raping, or killing) out of other motives like simple greed. I simply don't think that's true. The governement shouldn't be in the business of legislating some crimes worse than others for these reasons. I'm calling emperor's new clothes on this whole way of thinking.
understanding the motive behind a crime is the key to rehabilitating offenders.
Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.
Originally posted by FailedProphet
Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.
My point exactly.
Now, the law recognizes "mitigating circumstances" in terms of motivation. Like if a man breaks into a drugstore to steal a drug that he can't afford in order to save his dying daughter's life, the judge is allowed to go easier on him than a case in which a junkie breaks into the same drugstore to get his fix. But extending this to matters of "identity" (race, sexual preference, etc.) and political motivation is a very tricky thing and, in my opinion, this is beyond the scope of the law. It takes us into Orwell-land.
Fact is, its not illegal to hate somebody because they are gay or a different race or whatever. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's covered by freedom of speech and thought. So using this as a criteria to make a punishment more severe than a case in which the same crime is committed without the "hate thoughts" is fundamentally illogical and unfair. Then there is the issue of what and who are covered by this "hate law" stuff. Race is covered. Being a homosexual is covered. But are these the same thing? And where do you draw the line? What about attacking somebody based on their political views being different from you? Who decides this stuff, and based on what? We are entering very mushy territory here, letting feeling and emotion take over from reason.
We can't crawl into people's skulls and determine their motivations with absolute certainty, and the courts and the law shouldn't be trying to do this and weighing certain thoughts and ideologies as more worthy of punishment than others. Crimes should be punished on the basis of acts, not thoughts.edit on 8/23/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)