Replies

I agree with you—we’re on the same side here. I think “hate crime” laws are stupid...but considering some of the flimsy criteria that are used to have “hate crimes” cut one way, this crime rises far above them, yet wouldn’t be prosecuted as a “hate crime” because it cuts the other way. It’s worth pointing out the double standard, even if we don’t think “hate crime” statutes are worth anything.

My main point in my post was that these four, after the heinous crimes they’ve (allegedly) committed, deserve nothing but a quick death after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

}:-)4

Then we are in agreement. The crimes they committed were so extreme in their brutal savagery, the killers were so animalistic in their murderous depradation, that trying to pin the charge of a "hate crime" on their act, which requires us to believe they actually engaged in higher cognitive function while doing it, oddly minimalizes their crime, IMO. It confers upon these animals a deliberate reason, however heinous, to have committed it when I don't think conferring reason upon their senseless barbarity is merited.

And I agree with you "hate crime" prosecutions are stupid. All crimes are hate crimes, then, if we begin asking jurors to play psychic with a defendant's interior motives during a crime's commission, rather than restrict juries to considering concrete evidence when deliberating guilt. I thought most people on FR thought so too. That's why I was rather appalled to see so many people suddenly express their reflexive support for it's implementation in the prosecution of this crime - & not just for the purpose of underscoring its unjustly selective utilisation.