|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Hating On Hate Crime Legislation
I’m sorry, but this is a sloppy statute … and a slippery slope.
I’m sorry, but this is a sloppy statute … and a slippery slope.
8 comments
Stupid – crime is crime regardless of your reasoning. Since the state is not required to prove motive anyway, why does your motive matter? By this reasoning, Elick should get a lighter sentence for the thefts from his law group because he “loved” his partners. Shoot, for that matter, maybe he should get an award for stealing money from Randolph…
“crime is crime regardless of your reasoning.”
You wouldn’t make it past the first year in law school.
This is disappointing to read. Why would you not want someone who committed a hate crime to be punished for it? Crime is not just crime. This is violence simply for existing.
Queer women are raped to show they’re only gay bc they haven’t had good d—k. Openly gay men are assaulted, just for being gay. At least being queer is easy to hide. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to be trans, right here in our very own SC? Or the hatred towards people who are religious, but not Christian? And God forbid you’re not white.
These things are part of *who we are* and cannot be changed (nor should we ever feel forced to). Vastly different from targeting a specific person or a crime of opportunity.
While I don’t know anything about you, the writer, if you’re a cis white man, you are looking at these issues from the perspective of the people in power. You may mean well, but you are not out here seeing the reality we, the people hate crimes are committed against, face every day.
I hope you reflect on why you think a hate crime should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, Federal AND State.
I cannot subscribe to FITSNews knowing you don’t think I, and so many other people, should have that protection. I hope you care more than this article makes it seem.
Not so. Most crimes require proof of “mens rea” (bad intent), but in no other case do we inquire into the motivation behind a crime.
So how does this statute compare to other states’ with hate crime laws? If written similarly, are they seeing the hypothetical issue you are worrying about? Or how is the federal law written? It appears you’re ok with the state not having their own law since the federal law supercedes it, so presumably it’s not creating the hypothetical scenario you envisioned. I’m sure this is all research you’ve done, right?
Cool. Then let’s get rid of all laws that address “intent” in crimes.
Intent to distribute? Gone. Was a crime committed purposefully, negligently, or recklessly? Gone. That’s “thought police” stuff, right? Just throw the book at everyone. Or not.
Fitslogic, people!
Intent is not the same thing as motivation.
This law probably violates the 14th Amendment (equal protection).