Perhaps not, but we as a society are already perfectly okay with creating different levels of punishment based solely on motive. By your earlier logic, if I shoot someone in the head, my punishment should be no different if I did it because he's some stranger that spilled my beer at a bar and I happened to have my gun on me than if I spent months plotting to kill someone because they hit on my wife once. The actual act is the same, different punishments would amount to punishing thought, no?

Like I said, I don't necessarily think that hate crime legislation is an effective thing to do, but "we can't punish motive because that's being thought-police" isn't a argument against it that holds much water because, well, we already do that with no objection.

Which is why rape carries a stiffer penalty than simple assault. Crimes against children can carry larger penalties than crimes against adults. Domestic violence stronger penalties than punching a guy at a bar. We already have many dividing lines where, as a society, we feel it necessary to make a point of discouraging specific behavior.

Why is everybody always picking on me?

Do you really want to know?

Thank you GD. You made the exact same points I wanted to make last night, but couldn't (sick computer).

GD said it best (of course ;) ). The idea that "person A shot person B" is always the exact same crime and deserves the exact same punishment is absurd.

What if:

A = 4 year old with daddy's gun?

A = A senile 101 year old man?

A = A person who's killed before?

OR

B = A visibly pregnant woman?

B = A person who is pointing a gun at A?


Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Another point that I would make is that statements in black and white look lovely on paper, but that human brains do not work that way. "Motive doesn't matter" just doesn't make sense in the world of human experience, as the already-in-place legal system bears out.


I'm reminded of the "is it ok to steal medicine to make your loved one well" test they give children and teens to show that there is a gray area in good/bad and punishment that people grow to understand as they mature.

Motive does matter-but saying it is "worse" for someone to kill because their victim was gay, than because their victim was a woman- is wrong. It creates a different class of victims-and the punishment should not be different due to that "class".

Again, we already do that. It's "worse" to assault a child vs. assaulting an adult. It's "worse" to abuse an elderly infirmed person than a middle-aged person. There are countless laws that have been in effect, with little to no objection, for decades that delineate all kinds of different classes of people against whom a crime carries a stiffer punishment.

Argue all you want that this particular way to create a separate class won't accomplish anything benefiting society, but saying that creating different classes of victims is in and of itself wrong simply does not hold water considering our current justice system. So unless we're going to open up debate on all of those other laws meant to protect particular classes of people, it's not an argument that makes much sense.

I thought this was the happy gay thread

Just by way of completing a thought - employment laws, specifically laws concerning discriminatory hiring and firing practices, already create legal distinctions involving the very protected classes of people covered by hate crime legislation.

I think that Mario Cantone is the gayest gay that has ever gayed TV. He was on The View this morning dressed as Peter Pan. No one was shocked.

:D