^^I think Supplanter pretty much hits the nail on the head, there. We need to be looking at the laws or policies that are discriminatory, and there are still quite a few that need to be addressed. My opposition to hate crime legislation is not rooted in some anti-homosexual or anti-minority agenda, I just think the law should apply to everyone equally. I despise the fact that opposition to hate crime legislation is automatically interpreted as "providing cover" for the anti-gay crowd, by some.

My position can be succinctly stated as this: killing someone because they're black/gay/female/anything should be treated like they killed someone for no reason. Whatever community is being "harmed" through scare tactics will see that the criminal had to pay the full price for what they did, and they'll know that person is no longer on the streets. That's justice - we don't need to "throw a bone" to various communities by tacking on jail time to crimes that already carry mandatory 20+ year sentences.

2/7/2011 10:35:48 PM

Quote :

"If classification of 'hate' stuff didn't exist, then everyone who sees them on the street should be able to shout gay slurs at these people. Am I wrong?"

Actually they're allowed to even though hate-crime legislation does exist, because shouting at people is not a crime; hate-crime legislation merely stiffens the penalties for acts that would still have been criminal without the legislation.

2/7/2011 10:39:56 PM

Quote :

"My position can be succinctly stated as this: killing someone because they're black/gay/female/anything should be treated like they killed someone for no reason."

I tend to disagree, though at least here I am open to the idea that I disagree for no *good* reason. I will still offer the reasons that leap to mind:

1) Organizations with the power to perform massive killing or oppression have tended to use classifications like black/gay/female. They have not been wholly arbitrary.
2) It is fundamentally impossible to base a broad pattern of oppression or slaughter on a wholly arbitrary basis.
3) An arbitrary crime is inherently not a political one. A political crime is inherently not arbitrary, and can easily include those motivated by race/gender/sexual preference/etc.

---

A man who kills his cuckold is bad, but the extent to which he is bad is likely to be limited to his own personal circumstance. A man who kills another one because he is black or gay or what have you is less likely to be so limited. In the one case, the only person who needs feel threatened is one banging the murderer's wife. In the other, it's anybody whose nature happens to be offensive to the same. The two are different. I'm not sure that the difference requires its own law -- in an ideal world, we could differentiate between the two -- but to suggest they are the same is inane.

2/8/2011 12:43:13 AM

I think he meant that they should be the same legally.

2/8/2011 12:47:28 AM

And I disagree that they should be the same legally.

The one represents an asshole, the other represents a group of assholes. It should not come as a surprise that I am more worried about (and willing to execute!) the latter.

2/8/2011 12:48:56 AM

I object to hate crime legislation on the grounds that "other people need feel threatened" is impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.
Let's say some accidentally injures or kills a homosexual in a way that some people would then feel threatened about. Since the effect on the other people is the same independent of the actual intent, should the person be held liable for the additional harm? This is an honest question to better understand how one could actually quantify the additional "social harm" (as it was called earlier in the thread)

2/8/2011 1:10:09 AM

If you accidentally kill someone, gay or otherwise, isn't that manslaughter? Can you articulate an example scenario of what you have in mind?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 1:16:26 AM

Indeed, but what if the public misinterprets it as a hate crime, much like this supposed arson? Is the damage not the same? Should the person committing the accidental manslaughter be liable for the damage?

Or is it assumed that the damage is wiped clean as soon as the truth is presented in any publication?

And I'm not just talking about accidental death, it could be an actual murder, but presented by the media in such a way that makes people think it was a hate crime (like this article). Social harm = the same no matter what the facts are right?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 1:18:30 AM

Quote :

"Indeed, but what if the public misinterprets it as a hate crime, much like this supposed arson? "

The public doesn't apply charges. Nor does the media. I'm not sure the arson example is a good one, because no hate crime charge has been applied, and short of the assailant personally declaring motivation I doubt one will be.

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 1:37:07 AM

So it's only after the charges are filed does the damage get done to society? Or is it on a conviction?

Wouldn't either of those mean that our society would be better off without charging or convicting hate crimes?

2/8/2011 1:45:24 AM

Quote :

"So it's only after the charges are filed does the damage get done to society? Or is it on a conviction? Wouldn't either of those mean that our society would be better off without charging or convicting hate crimes?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was only pointing out that what if the public misunderstands a case is a poor guide to designing a legal system. Its the cops and district attorneys and whatnot who get to decide what charges to apply.

2/8/2011 1:48:31 AM

Quote :

"My position can be succinctly stated as this: killing someone because they're black/gay/female/anything should be treated like they killed someone for no reason."

Cool an anti-reality position that makes no attempt whatsoever to draw the relevant distinctions.

2/8/2011 1:51:16 AM

^^
Ok, then, when is the actual social harm applied in the case of a hate crime? When is the message sent?

2/8/2011 1:54:36 AM

Quote :

"When is the message sent?"

When intent can be established. Plenty of crimes work this way.

2/8/2011 2:00:27 AM

Quote :

"Ok, then, when is the actual social harm applied in the case of a hate crime? When is the message sent?"

All I did was ask for an example of what you are talking about when you said what if someone accidentally kills a gay person in a way that makes people feel threatened. I haven't made any contentions against your message-sending theories so far.

I don't know if I know enough about psychology and cultural dynamics to answer your messaging-timing question. I imagine after MLK was assassinated that played a role for a while in people's willingness to stand behind a podium and speak out. After 9/11 I heard lots of conversations about whether or not it was safe to play. I don't know that those effects can be pinpointed to a moment, rather perhaps an enduring period of reflection on such incidents affects people over time?

2/8/2011 2:08:07 AM

established by whom? What if many homosexuals reading this thread and the article in question felt threatened as you suggest they could? Do they wait for charges to be filed to feel threatened?

2/8/2011 2:08:26 AM

Quote :

"Do they wait for charges to be filed to feel threatened?"

That probably depends on the individual. I imagine some gay people might feel threatened right away, some might feel threatened when they hear charges filled, some might feel threatened after a conviction (I'm guessing that is most common in an innocent until proven guilty system), some might never feel threatened but still as a practical matter decide not to take a job in an area that has history of such events, and some people may never feel threatened at all by it.

I don't think there is a monolithic response to emotions, but I'm thinking convictions might be the height of the distribution?

2/8/2011 2:18:22 AM

And can you understand why I feel hesitant to assign additional punishment based on "well, some might be threatened, some might not, they might feel threatened now, they might feel threatened later?"

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 8:49:29 AM

Quote :

"And what do we get when we get to label people terrorists and punish them differently? Authorized assassinations of Americans without due process. "

terrorizing /= terrorism

terrorizing is repeated threats or acts meant to intimidate someone.

2/8/2011 9:36:32 AM

Quote :

"And can you understand why I feel hesitant to assign additional punishment based on "well, some might be threatened, some might not, they might feel threatened now, they might feel threatened later?""

Again, intent to threaten is the important factor. Intent is assessed in legal matters all the time. You're asking how to determine intent here, and that's a different discussion.

(Unless you think intent cannot be assessed at all which is ridiculously academic.)

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 11:58:34 AM

You don't know if their intent was to threaten. You don't mind making the assumption that it is, but no one ever says, "yeah, I beat down that gay dude to send a message to all gay people that they, too, could get assaulted."

As an example, let's take a serial killer that only goes after women with blonde hair between the age of 18-22 that live on college campuses. When the killer gets caught, do we charge him with a hate crime? Can we assume that he meant to send a message to all college age women?

Quote :

"Cool an anti-reality position that makes no attempt whatsoever to draw the relevant distinctions."

lol, keep trolling bro.

2/8/2011 12:14:26 PM

I'm not saying it's impossible to prove intent. I'm saying it's impossible to prove intent to threaten when the definition of being threatened is subjective and amorphous when speaking in terms of "social harm." It's a huge gray area that lends itself (see this thread as evidence) to assuming intent to threaten where there may not be evidence for it at all.

But really you just confirmed for me that the actual social harm is irrelevant. You don't even attempt to quantify it because it cannot be quantified in any meaningful way.

2/8/2011 12:15:56 PM

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : nevermind, its a waste of time]

2/8/2011 12:19:11 PM

Quote :

"You don't know if their intent was to threaten. You don't mind making the assumption that it is, but no one ever says, "yeah, I beat down that gay dude to send a message to all gay people that they, too, could get assaulted.""

No but they do say things like "die, faggot" which constitute a reasonable threat to other gays as well. If it's clear the person is targeting the person due to them being gay, then that person is sending the message that they are willing to beat anybody for that same reason. This promotes fear, and if it's not specially punished, can lead to an environment in which such harassment is not quite "okay", but not adequately discouraged.

Quote :

"As an example, let's take a serial killer that only goes after women with blonde hair between the age of 18-22 that live on college campuses. When the killer gets caught, do we charge him with a hate crime? Can we assume that he meant to send a message to all college age women?"

Assessing intent is a completely different issue. You've supplied a half-sketch of a scenario. Can we establish intent on such little information beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know, and in cases where we can't then we cannot assign guilt (much like in every other case).

Quote :

"I'm not saying it's impossible to prove intent. I'm saying it's impossible to prove intent to threaten when the definition of being threatened is subjective and amorphous when speaking in terms of "social harm." It's a huge gray area that lends itself (see this thread as evidence) to assuming intent to threaten where there may not be evidence for it at all. But really you just confirmed for me that the actual social harm is irrelevant. You don't even attempt to quantify it because it cannot be quantified in any meaningful way."

Oh stop with the histrionics already and stop projecting conclusions and capacities onto me. There's nothing impossible at all with setting boundaries here. Social harm is clearly identifiable in cases where "simple crimes" such as killings have caused racial tension or outright fear. Outright attempts at harassment and intimidation by using other crimes as a signal of willingness to follow through on threats is different than a regular crime.

Like I have no idea how to make you two think causally. The entire point of a legal system is to intervene on the public, providing strong incentive to act in a socially beneficial way (subject to certain ethical constraints, in a way that maximizes the defense of rights and justice however it be defined). If someone intends to spread fear and panic amongst a sub-population and uses a violent crime to do so, then we're dealing with a much different causal picture than a random murder. The person is trying to intervene on the public in a way that is certainly bad; it could lead to racial tensions that increase crimes between the communities or other forms of social disfunction like discrimination, etc. The fact that I can not quantify this on the spot (with what units, exactly?) has little to do with anything. You cannot demand a correct sociological theory on the spot when the legal issue that frames it is at question.

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 12:29:23 PM

I'm not saying that they're not different. I'm saying that identifying the way in which they are different in a meaningful way that would make me comfortable punishing one more harshly than another is impossible.

I do think "social harm" exists. I do think that it is possible to terrorize other people. I don't like laws being able to tack on "hate crime" based on ideas which are not quantifiable. To me, it's too ambiguous and prone to misuse.

2/8/2011 12:35:29 PM

Quote :

"No but they do say things like "die, faggot" which constitute a reasonable threat to other gays as well. If it's clear the person is targeting the person due to them being gay, then that person is sending the message that they are willing to beat anybody for that same reason. This promotes fear, and if it's not specially punished, can lead to an environment in which such harassment is not quite "okay", but not adequately discouraged."

I kind of agree with this. It's difficult to think how a legal system can provide any sort of reasonable protection against stuff like this, when it's clear that basically an irrational anti-gay mob is out there. Saying "die, faggot" while people are literally killing gay people elsewhere in the nation is a "fear for your life" threat.

I'm not saying I have an answer for this problem, but I do recognize that hate crime legislation does try to address it, whether it is effective or not. If nothing else, it shows that the legal system has the capacity to address harm to a civic group. While hate crime laws are objectionable on several counts, the intent of hate crime laws is not IMO. If there existed a better way to address the issue, it seems like that would be the best, although I recognize such a thing doesn't exist.

2/8/2011 12:38:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying that they're not different. I'm saying that identifying the way in which they are different in a meaningful way that would make me comfortable punishing one more harshly than another is impossible."

What you're comfortable with doesn't matter, laws should be selected based on the incentives they create and on the ethical and other legal constraints they have to obey. They're meant to have an effect on a population's behavior.

I don't know what you mean by "identifying the way in which they are different in a meaningful way". I gave you a potential causal reason. Either you address that reason or you don't, but you don't get to claim that no meaningful distinction exists unless you explain adequately why my proposed causal distinction is not "meaningful". It has clear truth conditions and clear entailments which can be tested or otherwise observed.

Quote :

"I do think "social harm" exists. I do think that it is possible to terrorize other people. I don't like laws being able to tack on "hate crime" based on ideas which are not quantifiable. To me, it's too ambiguous and prone to misuse."

The law exists precisely to handle vague and ambiguous cases, and very few things are "quantifiable" to the degree you're demanding here. All that needs to be assessed is the intent to cause social harm; just like the intent to murder can be charged even if the murder is not successful, the intent to cause social harm can be charged even if no harm is achieved.

2/8/2011 12:47:41 PM

obvs. shoulda said "HATE MOR FAGOTS": http://www.thedaonline.com/news/chick-fil-a-cow-portrays-anti-gay-message-on-sign-1.1966990

2/8/2011 2:33:22 PM

^^all about intent and no about any actual harm, got it.

2/8/2011 4:16:07 PM

To the libertarian types...what should be done then to fight these crimes that specifically target gays or blacks or another minority? Anything? Wishing really hard?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 4:26:42 PM

Did this crime specifically target gays or blacks or another minority?

But to answer your question, I think we should treat everyone equally under the law and punish according to the action that was committed.

2/8/2011 4:33:36 PM

So you think that lynching a black man should be punished with exactly the same severity as any murder? Is it really the same crime occurring vs. a randomly chosen victim?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 4:48:00 PM

No, I think lynching a black man should be punished in the same manner as lynching a white man, or a asian woman.

Murders themselves have mitigating circumstances that should be punished differently according to the details, but the race of the victim should not be one of them.

2/8/2011 4:50:49 PM

I'll get back to this thread when I can sit down for more than 5 minutes, but disco_stu is not a libertarian, nor a libertarian-type, nor does he even refer to himself as a libertarian, so I'm not sure why that's being thrown around.

2/8/2011 4:52:16 PM

Are you saying that the law should do absolutely nothing to deal with bigotry that results in murders aside from punishing the murders themselves?

Do you also think private businesses should have the right to refuse customers based on race?



[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 4:52:52 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that the law should do absolutely nothing to deal with bigotry that results in murders aside from punishing the murders themselves? "

Yes, the "law dealing with bigotry" is throughtcrime and I'm thoroughly opposed to it.

Quote :

"Do you also think private businesses should have the right to refuse customers based on race?"

Not at all, I'm a fan of anti-discrimination laws and think that they should be enforced. Hate crime legislation is by definition discriminatory.

^^I know, right?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 5:01:04 PM

Quote :

"Not at all, I'm a fan of anti-discrimination laws and think that they should be enforced. Hate crime legislation is by definition discriminatory."

How are they "by definition" discriminatory?

Quote :

"Yes, the "law dealing with bigotry" is throughtcrime and I'm thoroughly opposed to it."

Isn't that exactly what anti-discrimination laws were designed to do? Would they have still been enacted if there was perfect racial harmony in the US in the 1960's?




[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 5:04:31 PM

Because they punish people differently based on whatever protected class they have versus whatever protected class of their victim.

Quote :

"Isn't that exactly what anti-discrimination laws were designed to do? Would they have still been enacted if there was perfect racial harmony in the US? "

Anti-discrimination laws ensure equal service and protection, not assign additional punishment due to hatred. It's not like you get a slap on a wrist for denying a white person service, but prison for denying a black person service. You get punished for denying anyone service. That's equal protection under the law.

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 5:06:39 PM

Quote :

"Because they punish people differently based on whatever protected class they have versus whatever protected class of their victim."

What definition of "hate crime" are you basing this on? This is important, since you're claiming they do this "by definition".

2/8/2011 5:09:35 PM

You didn't answer my question. Were anti-discrimination laws designed to thwart prevalent bigotry at the time or not?


edit: Also

Quote :

"You get punished for denying anyone service. That's equal protection under the law."

Not true, you get punished for denying service based on race. It is not equal protection, people who act on bigoted beliefs are the sole victims of punishment. Throwing a person out of your business is not a crime in itself. Anti-discrimination laws deal entirely with intent and single out people for their beliefs, how is that different from the thought control you earlier stated you were afraid of?



[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 5:10:17 PM

Quote :

"Anti-discrimination laws deal entirely with intent and single out people for their beliefs, how is that different from the thought control you earlier stated you were afraid of?"

Actually, such laws single people out for their actions.

2/8/2011 10:47:11 PM

Quote :

"No but they do say things like "die, faggot" which constitute a reasonable threat to other gays as well. If it's clear the person is targeting the person due to them being gay, then that person is sending the message that they are willing to beat anybody for that same reason. This promotes fear, and if it's not specially punished, can lead to an environment in which such harassment is not quite "okay", but not adequately discouraged."

You started saying that intent to threaten would need to be established, now you're saying the person just needs to perform some action that "constitutes a reasonable threat," regardless of intent to "send a message." Which is it?

Now, tell me: under a legal system where a person committed of murdering someone because they're gay will go to jail for life or be executed, and a person committed of murdering a person because of some absurd reason (like the victim looked at them funny) receives the exact some punishment, how is the crime "not adequately discouraged"? How could you discourage it anymore than that?

There's actually much less disagreement here than you think. We wouldn't treat a gay bashing the same way as we would treat a dude getting beat up because he slept with another guy's wife. In the latter scenario, there's some rationale behind the violent behavior - mitigating circumstances. In the case of a person targeting individuals with certain immutable characteristics, completely unprovoked, malicious intent is demonstrated. I've said that it should be as if they committed the act for no reason. We afford that kind of behavior the harshest penalty allowed by law. My entire point has been that we don't need "protected classes" - if someone is the victim of aggression, not because of what they've done but for who they are, then their aggressor should be given the maximum punishment.

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2011 11:38:54 PM

Quote :

"Actually, such laws single people out for their actions."

Try and follow, burro.

Two actions, A and B.

A: Owner of shop kicks person out for being a disturbance.
B: Owner of shop kicks person out for being black.

One of these things is okay and one isn't, and the difference is determined based on the intent present in B but not in A.

Quote :

"You started saying that intent to threaten would need to be established, now you're saying the person just needs to perform some action that "constitutes a reasonable threat," regardless of intent to "send a message." Which is it?"

The first. I didn't mean to represent the second, really. At least it's not coherent with what I believe. The intent quite clearly needs to be established.

Quote :

"Now, tell me: under a legal system where a person committed of murdering someone because they're gay will go to jail for life or be executed, and a person committed of murdering a person because of some absurd reason (like the victim looked at them funny) receives the exact some punishment, how is the crime "not adequately discouraged"? How could you discourage it anymore than that?"

Punishments are normalized by the length of a person's life to some extent (at least in terms of sentencing). If you sentence someone to life in jail or to death, then you can't effectively punish them any more than that. That is to say, as crimes get more and more heinous, the corresponding sentence fails to give you meaningful information differentiating the heinousness of the crime anymore. You're squeezing up against the ceiling, so to speak.

That being said, you picked two extremal cases where adding a hate component could not possibly entail further punishments, as no further punishments could be taken. Clearly you cannot punish the person anymore, so in this case the punishment should be the same. I hope you can see why that's irrelevant on your own, but I'm willing to explain if you're confused.

Quote :

"There's actually much less disagreement here than you think. We wouldn't treat a gay bashing the same way as we would treat a dude getting beat up because he slept with another guy's wife. In the latter scenario, there's some rationale behind the violent behavior - mitigating circumstances. In the case of a person targeting individuals with certain immutable characteristics, completely unprovoked, malicious intent is demonstrated. I've said that it should be as if they committed the act for no reason. We afford that kind of behavior the harshest penalty allowed by law. My entire point has been that we don't need "protected classes" - if someone is the victim of aggression, not because of what they've done but for who they are, then their aggressor should be given the maximum punishment."

Are you actually arguing that we should simply amplify all punishments, thus obviating the need for hate crimes?

2/9/2011 12:31:05 AM

No, not all crimes, just those involving unprovoked, violent aggression. People exhibiting irrational behavior (which racially/sexuality motivated violence, for instance, falls under) are a danger to society, without a doubt. Their hate doesn't stem from any rational decision making process - it's a product of a culture that actively encourages hate. Unless that culture/upbringing itself is to be taken as a mitigating circumstance, the behavior should be treated as having been motivated by pure malice, thus demonstrating the maximum amount of danger to society. So, yes, I would say that there's no reason for particular "hate crimes," if we can agree that a person's immutable characteristics are not at all a valid reason to target them.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

2/9/2011 12:50:57 AM

Quote :

"So, yes, I would say that there's no reason for particular "hate crimes," if we can agree that a person's immutable characteristics are not at all a valid reason to target them."

What notion of "valid" are you trading on here?

2/9/2011 12:07:25 PM

I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge a person with a "hate crime" if it can be demonstrated that the crime was committed with the intention of causing intimidation. Additional punishment in such cases is appropriate because such crimes clearly cause more harm than your typical act of criminality.

But if that intent to intimidate can't be proven, you're just doling out harsher punishment because you find one reason for committing a crime more distasteful than another - beating a man because he's gay is worse than beating a man because he's ugly, etc. It's an impulse that's born of good intentions, but the effect, I think, is to remind society that members of certain groups are, and should be treated as, victims.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2011 2:01:42 PM

Quote :

"But if that intent to intimidate can't be proven, you're just doling out harsher punishment because you find one reason for committing a crime more distasteful than another - beating a man because he's gay is worse than beating a man because he's ugly, etc. It's an impulse that's born of good intentions, but the effect, I think, is to remind society that members of certain groups are, and should be treated as, victims."

If the intent cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt then there's something wrong with our legal system, but not with distinguishing between hate crimes and non-hate crimes.

2/9/2011 2:40:31 PM

I've never been too keen on the "intimidation" aspect of this. To me, a hate crime gets special treatment because a crime committed for that reason implies a higher likelihood of future crimes in the same vein.

You beat a guy because he slept with your wife or cheated at poker or even grievously insulted you, it could easily be a one-off event. It doesn't imply that you're going to beat anybody else unless they do the same sort of thing to trigger you, which is far from certain. You beat a guy because he's black or gay...well, it's pretty goddamn certain that sooner or later you're going to run into somebody else who's black or gay.

2/9/2011 2:41:48 PM

Quote :

"What notion of "valid" are you trading on here?"

In this context, reasonable, or at least understandable, even if not excusable. Shooting a guy because he slept with your wife isn't a good reason, but it's a reason. Shooting someone because they're black or gay is stupid. It demonstrates a certain degree of irrationality and instability that makes the criminal of very high danger to society.

^I agree with that, also.

2/9/2011 4:44:41 PM

Quote :

"In this context, reasonable, or at least understandable, even if not excusable. Shooting a guy because he slept with your wife isn't a good reason, but it's a reason. Shooting someone because they're black or gay is stupid. It demonstrates a certain degree of irrationality and instability that makes the criminal of very high danger to society."

It's not necessarily stupid or irrational, it just implies the person has a certain set of values (that could result in such action). The issue is an issue with values, not rationality; if tribalism is the correct ethical viewpoint (I'd argue it isn't but you could imagine even a "smart" person thinking it so), then it would be rational to close out other groups competitively. Certain groups have done quite well due to this, and in fact, people like you and me benefit from the spillover effects even today (from this sort of crap).

The point is that there are people who aren't insane (in any interesting sense) but who are just bigots, and these people are sometimes willing to intimidate people from other groups into leaving, feeling bad, or whatever. While you're right that there's no real reason to be a bigot (and that you shouldn't be one), suggesting that the law only be sensitive to differences in what you consider "reasonable" classes of offenses serves no useful legal purpose. You're suggesting that we treat a section of the population that isn't crazy as if they were crazy, and then, rather than not treating them medically as crazy people you want to kill them or jail them for life.

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 5:11:48 PM