To: muir_redwoods
I would welcome an explanation.How about this:
We punish an abusive-husband killing wife less severely, if at all, because she kills out of emotions we believe justified, at least to some extent.
The proposed laws would punish "hate crimes" more severely than similar actions because the proponents of these laws believe the hate and fear motivating such crimes is never, ever justified.
9 posted on
05/06/2007 10:00:17 AM PDT by
Sherman Logan
(I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
To: Sherman Logan
So, to support the reason behind this law one has to have the right flavor of emotion.
Shouldn't law be a matter of reason and predictability based upon a rational, consistent philosophy instead of a mass of accommodations for the preferred emotions?
11 posted on
05/06/2007 11:09:54 AM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Sherman Logan
The proposed laws would punish “hate crimes” more severely than similar actions because the proponents of these laws believe the hate and fear motivating such crimes is never, ever justified.
So some hate is okay while other hate is not? Who decides?
Under what circumstances? Punishing thought is much more dangerous to our society as a whole than many of the acts being referred to.
17 posted on
05/06/2007 7:08:46 PM PDT by
Joan Kerrey
(Believe nothing of what you hear or read and half of what you see.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson