Two idiots with too much alcohol in their system.
Originally Posted by Reba
Unlike you, I don't find the Constitution to be a joke.
I don't find the Constitution to be a joke either. I find the inequitable application of the Constitution to be unnacceptable, and the claim that all people of this nation are equally protected by it to be a joke.
The laws have been in place. It's up to the authorities to properly enforce them. The lynchings were stopped BEFORE the hate crimes laws were enacted.
So, because we haven't had a black man hung from a tree since the 1960's, we don't need to address the violence currently being perpetrated by marginalized populations in this country?
If you believe that the laws that were already in place were ignored what makes you think that hate crimes laws wouldn't be ignored? Doesn't it still boil down to enforcement?
The law has to be there before it can be enforced.
If the same amount of damage is done, then, yes.
BTW, what was the motive for the bar fight?
Not really. People are put on trial for their actions, not their intentions. (At least, so far; thought crimes haven't been put on the books yet.)
You are very wrong. If intent was not a fact of the law, we would not have differential sentencing. First degree murder and manslaughter would carry the same sentence.
Putting hate crimes on the books, and doing nothing aren't the only two options.
Then, please, tell us what your other options would be.
How do you measure "intent?" Is that quantifiable? Does one person hate 3.75 times as much as another person?
Everything does not have to be quantified to be present.
It's not necessary for hate crimes legislation in order to do that. Anyone who harms another should be punished, period.
Okay. Then the driver that has an accident and kills another human being in the process should be subject to the same punishment as someone who commits the act of first degree murder. Is that what you are saying?
That's what all laws should do. Additional laws for enforcing current laws aren't necessary.
If the current laws are being enforced disporportionately, and they are on an everyday basis, then regulation in some form is needed. For that, quite obviously, there needs to be legal repurcussions for disproportionate enforcement.
How do hate crimes protect marginalized populations who are victims of crimes that aren't hate based? They don't.
They aren't intended to. They are specific to those crimes that are committed from a position of hate.
So-called hate crimes laws do nothing to protect marginalized victims from attack. They are feel-good panaceas that don't do much of anything productive.[/QUOTE]
The punish the hate filled. They provide equitable justice to the victim.