I'm... sorry to start your morning, this way.

[wolven7]

I'm not a proponent of Hate-Crimes legislation. Why not? Because, as one of my favourite characters on one of my favourite shows said, I don't think we should prosecute someone more harshly for a crime, because of what was in their heads when they committed it. Past proving "malicious intent"-- and all Hate Crimes would meet that standard, don't you thinl? Being Hate Crimes-- I don't think we need to discuss the particular Kind of malice.

That being said, for that to work, completely, we would need to live in a world where people were punished for the crimes they committed, and admitted to committing. Rather than, you know: NOT.

Link found via x_bluerose_x.

You know what to do, people.

Comments

[oletheros.livejournal.com]

a friend of mine pointed out that there is a portion of the trial already dedicated to rationale, intent and motivation.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

There almost always is, but that portion, depending on the type of area, can go in vastly different directions.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Terrifying.

The linked post brings up the only decent defense I've seen of hate crimes legislation: That it makes things like "gay panic" impossible as a defense.

yrs--
--Ben

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah.

I do not, at present, have the words to express how it makes me feel, that that is a defense with precedent.

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

Christ, I certainly hadn't heard anything about that.

And I live in Bloomington.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and with what you posted, yesterday, I figured it as something to put out there.