Veritass
Emperor
Which is why they have something called "Mitigating Circumstances", right?
Most mitigating circumstances have to do with factual evidence.
"Hate crime" is "thought crime", a dangerous slope to start down.
Which is why they have something called "Mitigating Circumstances", right?
It's a case that merits a harsher punishment than mere littering.So this would be a hate littering? whats the punishment for littering and what is a good escalation because it was "hate"?
It's a case that merits a harsher punishment than mere littering.
Crime = act + intent, so two similar acts can be punished differntly depending on intent (mere littering vs. targeting a specific group with your act) just as two people with the same intent (show their disdain for a religious group) could be punished differently if their acts to achieve their intent were different (leaving a bacon-laden Koran at the doorstep vs. firing shots at the doorstep).
Murder statutes are based on intent. If you intended to kill the guy when you threw the punch, then you would be charged with a more serious crime than if you got an lucky punch in or if you were just swing your arms around and somebody walked into your accidental "punch". In the case of the bacon, your punishment should very depending on if you were just littering or if you placed it there for a specific purpose that went beyond mere littering.I think your mixing up the usage of the word intent. Intent is the goal, not the reason for a action. If I got in to a fight and landed a unluckily blow killing the guy, I would say my intent wasn't to kill him and so i should be charged with murder I.
Murder statutes are based on intent. If you intended to kill the guy when you threw the punch, then you would be charged with a more serious crime than if you got an lucky punch in or if you were just swing your arms around and somebody walked into your accidental "punch". In the case of the bacon, your punishment should very depending on if you were just littering or if you placed it there for a specific purpose that went beyond mere littering.
I can see your point. To me, the incident in question was obviously more than littering, but obviously short of terrorism. The punishment should be enhanced from littering, but not charged as terrorism. Charging it as a hate crime (to get the focus on the intent being less innocent than mere littering) may be the only choice to be able to extract an appropriate punishment.I agree, to a point. If your intent was to fool someone in to eating that bacon so they would get sick, then thats the crime you should be charged with, if your intent was to terrorize them to change or give up their freedoms, then the crime should be terrorism. but as Veritass said,a hate crime law is nothing more then a "thought crime" and not a road i wish to go down.
Most mitigating circumstances have to do with factual evidence.
"Hate crime" is "thought crime", a dangerous slope to start down.
In the old days for something like that the police would just beat them up and then let them go.I can see your point. To me, the incident in question was obviously more than littering, but obviously short of terrorism. The punishment should be enhanced from littering, but not charged as terrorism. Charging it as a hate crime (to get the focus on the intent being less innocent than mere littering) may be the only choice to be able to extract an appropriate punishment.
I think it ranks right up there with showing a breast on tv.
Or fined to the same extent. Name who got upset about Janet Jackson again and got the the networks fined?Which means it should be ignored.![]()
Too many people make big deals out of little things.
Our holy book has been tainted by fat!![]()
Of course I am!Are you bothered by this?