Replies

Your example is logically invalid. You're presupposing the hyperthetical. What if man (A) and man (B) roles were reversed? The problem with hate-crime legislation is NOT in just and fair punishment, it is in subjective interpretation. How do you prove intent in the case oif man (B), if he was once in the KKK in his college days but now as a 50 year old contributing member of society happens to run-down and kill the black lady? His "past" will spawn motive, even though his intent was not to kill and was completely an accident. Under this legislation he would likely be convicted of a hate-crime, and suffer a more harsher sentence. The problem with subjective interpretation in law is that it shifts the burden of proof on the defendant, to prove innocence. How does one prove that they no longer ascribe to the views of the KKK??

I think you missed my point. My analogy is based on the assuption that man B *did* kill that person on purpose, regardless of what people can prove. Reversing the roles makes no difference; I simply put those in to demonstrate something racially motivated. Regardless of the victims, man B killed maliciously, which would deserve a harsher punishment.

Also, finding a motive behind a crime is neither subjective nor illogical. Finding motive helps us understand why something happened and allows society to better protect itself from violence in the future. We have laws like "intent to kill." If someone can be convicted of "intent to kill," how can that be done without motive?

In any just court, no one would be convicted based on 'subjective interpretation.' This is precisely why prosecutors attempt to find out *why* a crime is committed; it is rarely sufficient to base an entire case on evidence without reason. On the converse, motive, or lack thereof, helps people who are innocent to actually be freed of charges.

If someone can be convicted of "intent to kill," how can that be done without motive?

Because they are convicted based upon the actions they took, not their thoughts.

Despite the often ridiculous response here regarding this bill, it is not simply about homosexuals. The problem with this law is that it attempts to ascribe motives based on what the prosecution believes are the suspect's thoughts. This level of subjectivity allows too much arbitrariness into the law, which is an age old recipe for tyranny.

An example would be if you had to shoot an attacker or intruder, and they were one of the perceived "oppressed" classes, you would run the risk of being prosecuted under a law like this. Regardless that you were the intended victim, laws like this can be used by agenda driven prosecutors to 'show that you did not really need to shoot the other person, but did it because you hate all ___________s (fill in the blank).

Don't think I'm exaggerating. I've sat in (divorce) court and had a judge decide I had ill motives, without a shred of evidence to support her decision, and significant evidence that in fact the opposite was true. Why? I was a white male in divorce court, bastion of the feminist agenda. The law courts of full of agenda driven prosecutors and judges and all they need is an arbitrary law like this to unleash their prejudices.

[Hi Sandy! If you flag, please make sure I'm on your list. Thanks.]