Hate Crimes (church, pray, catholic, philosophy, legislation)

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

The justice system is there (well, it should be) to protect the citizens of the U.S. (this takes various forms e.g. enforcement of property rights, the ban on physical coercion, etc.). Not to reform criminals. People as a whole can help educate or change someones views - not the justice department.

the we have a big disagreement on the nature of punishment as a whole.

Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that a hate crime is the same as thoughtcrime from 1984. It means the State can punish you for what you think.

You should be punished for what you did - not what you thought.

but some ways of thinking threaten the security of the public, thus the punishment is justified - it's the same as saying terrorists only believe terror is the way, but unless individual terrorists commit terrorist attacks, we should tollerate and accept their view... terrorist ideology must not be tollerated, nor must blatant hate.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

Yeah, that person should be charged with petty vandalism. Just because it's a swatsika doesn't mean he should face harsher consequences.

I appreciate your honesty and consistency.

The problem, GloriaPatri, is that both the character and the consequence of the two acts differ and, I would argue, differ substantially. Those confronted with the spray painted happy face do not feel violated in the same way as does their Jewish brethren or, similarly, some group of Catholics who find their Church vandalized with the words: "Kill the Pope!"

Those confronted with the spray painted happy face do not feel threatened in the same way when they consider the very real possibility that the act of vandalism will inspire and encourage similar acts.

Simple vandalism is a costly irritant. Hate crimes are a dangerous cancer. It is, I believe, far more critical that society do all within reason to dissuade those who would engage in the latter. While it is important that we thoughtfully and cautiously balance between society's responsibility in this regard and society's responsibility to civil rights, I do not see how this goal can be intelligently pursued by equating the two acts.

[Inky]

Hate crimes aren't the only place in law where intent is important--it's the difference between first and second degree murder, for example. It matters in hate crimes because, like others have said, a person being murdered because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. has a more harmful effect on the community than killing for greed or simplistic rage.

[GloriaPatri]

Originally Posted by Mike182

but some ways of thinking threaten the security of the public, thus the punishment is justified - it's the same as saying terrorists only believe terror is the way, but unless individual terrorists commit terrorist attacks, we should tollerate and accept their view... terrorist ideology must not be tollerated, nor must blatant hate.

That's how you start losing your rights. Ideas don't threaten the public - coercion does (be it murder, assault, whatever). I never said anything about accepting other's views, not at all. I was just saying that they have the right to believe and speak what they want. If you aren't willing to protect speech that is contrary to your beliefs then you never really believed in free speech in the first place.

Kind of like Animal Farm - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other." Just replace animals with speech and equal with free.

All speech is free, but some speech is more free than other speech. That can't be tolerated.

[GloriaPatri]

Originally Posted by Jay

Simple vandalism is a costly irritant. Hate crimes are a dangerous cancer. It is, I believe, far more critical that society do all within reason to dissuade those who would engage in the latter. While it is important that we thoughtfully and cautiously balance between society's responsibility in this regard and society's responsibility to civil rights, I do not see how this goal can be intelligently pursued by equating the two acts.

I think that's where we differ. I don't believe that it is the masses responsibility to punish and change someone for their ideas. The only means to actually fight ideologies such as hate is education (and not government education!).

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

I think that's where we differ.

Where we differ is in our respective attitude towards the moral equivalencies that you assert.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

All speech is free, but some speech is more free than other speech. That can't be tolerated.

Do you advocate removal of laws such as "incitement to riot"?

Do you advocate removal of all laws that would limit speech such as those that prevent peaceful demonstrators from demonstrating whereever they like on public property?

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

That's how you start losing your rights. Ideas don't threaten the public - coercion does (be it murder, assault, whatever). I never said anything about accepting other's views, not at all. I was just saying that they have the right to believe and speak what they want. If you aren't willing to protect speech that is contrary to your beliefs then you never really believed in free speech in the first place.

Kind of like Animal Farm - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other." Just replace animals with speech and equal with free.

All speech is free, but some speech is more free than other speech. That can't be tolerated.

i freely admit i am intollerant of intollerance - i will not tollerate the intollerance of other people based on their race, age, gender, religion, hair color, or anything else - the hate crimes Jay sited are blatant intollerance, and i think the legal system should not tollerate that.