I get it, you think it's a good idea to make it a federal crime for harsher penalties or whatnot, but can't we make assault a federal crime without specifically punishing people for the thoughts they have while planning or committing a crime?
I think that the distinction is important. Not necessarily for the purposes of punishment, but certainly for the purposes of understanding society. If we want to reduce the frequency with which we hurt one another, it's important to know why we hurt one another. Right?
And personally, overlooking the fact that making assault in general a federal crime would overwhelm the federal system, I agree that all assault, no matter the cause, is serious and should be treated and punished seriously. But I do think, pesronally, that being attacked because of things about myself I did not necessarily choose, which my attacker hates for no rational reason, would be worse than being attacked because someone wants my money or my car, or because I slept with his wife, or because I was in his way during his bank robbery.
Those things are random or caused by my own actions. Being attacked because of them would suck, and I'd hope my attacker would be brought to justice and punished. But being attacked, being targeted, simply because of the color of my skin or the god I pray to or what kind of ass I think looks good in shorts, that would feel worse to me.
(The edit was just to change a typo.)
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
This message last edited by Nate on 24/10/2009 at 06:43:28 AM
Matthew Shepard act passed
23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM
- 778 Views
Meh
23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM
- 369 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities.
24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM
- 379 Views
Didn't we already slice crimes by degree of intention (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter) pre-Orwell?
24/10/2009 05:23:56 AM
- 357 Views
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
- 360 Views
See..this is much more important than Hate Crime Legislation, and it actually accomplishes something *NM*
24/10/2009 01:52:31 AM
- 128 Views
Agreed, but
24/10/2009 02:12:11 AM
- 328 Views
I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 02:22:46 AM
- 338 Views
I'm sure the law is not supposed to deter crime, but rather to ensure justice.
24/10/2009 03:49:58 AM
- 294 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
- 391 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:51:43 AM
- 356 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
- 336 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:27:35 AM
- 326 Views
So it's inherently worse for a gay man to get beaten up than a straight guy?
24/10/2009 03:45:43 AM
- 313 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ...
24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM
- 334 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone.
24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM
- 322 Views
All orientations are protected.
24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM
- 330 Views
Isn't killing or assaulting someone already illegal?
24/10/2009 05:50:15 AM
- 329 Views
As per my reply to you above:
24/10/2009 06:42:24 AM
- 346 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men?
24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM
- 304 Views
Minor point.
24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM
- 352 Views
well since almost everything he said turned out to be BS why not that too?
25/10/2009 02:36:25 PM
- 338 Views