Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
Are we on the right side of the aisle (and the issues  ) being baited so that we react to what we read rather than what was actually said and done? |
I don't believe so. Reading the article, I maintain vehement disagreement with the AG's position that "bias-motivated" crime deserves any more attention than a similar crime motivated instead by greed, anger, laziness, jealousy, boredom or any other factor. Were the Holocaust Museum murderer a young, white Jew that killed out of an intense hatred of museum patrons in general, would that lessen the resulting tragedy of the death and injury of the guards? If someone beats an elderly Asian woman to the point of hospitalization, does it matter if the assailant did so to take her wallet and steal her identity, or because the attacker hates "chinks"? If our justice system metes out punishment with an eye towards deterrence, what exactly are anti-hate crime laws really attempting to deter? A law against battery is enacted to attempt to discourage physical attacks by punishing those that do so. Thus, is the desired effect of a hate crime law to prevent hate? Are we really so self-important that we believe we can simply legislate away racial prejudice? I fail to see any difference between a sociopathic Latino murdering another, randomly selected Latino, and the same guy murdering a randomly selected caucasian; the end result is a dead human being, and is race-immaterial.
I feel we all have prejudices of one kind or another. I freely admit that given a choice, I prefer to associate with my SF brothers. So long as I'm not purposefully rude to others, what is the societal harm? If a person has a visceral distaste for, say, amputees, but never allows this bias to be overtly manifested, will a stronger anti-hate crime law change this person's view? I contend that it won't, and thus an emphasis on "bias-motivated" criminal law is both redundant and ineffective.