Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Sara Shores I Always Have Questions/

Hate crimes,Lady Justice must read minds, NOW??

3 Comments

Slippery Slope

Seems to me the "hate crime" idea is just another instance of falling down the slippery slope into a contradiction. For millenia, "murder" has been legally distinguished from mere "homicide" by inferred intent. You murdered if the court can prove you intended (for a sufficient time, more than a few minutes) to kill the victim. The court had to prove intent by showing that you wrote plans or purchased weapons or, most of the time, that you lay in wait (always considered a very bad thing).

The problem with "hate crime" legislation is there really is no comparable way to prove that you committed a robbery or a rape because you hate someone just because of his race, color, creed, gender, supposed gender, imputed gender, perceived gender, desired gender, superposition of genders, whatever. That really leaves nothing but IMPUTED hate, so, as you point out, if you're a white, Christian male, then it's just assumed that you hate everyone who isn't, so your penalties are worse. What happened to burden of proof? I suppose if you've published a Nazi manifesto, then it might be proved that you hate, but this legislation seems to be just to broad.

way to go, Sara! good one.

slipperyslopeslipped

thanks,reb, very good point about intent..in thinking of the intent of this legislation, Dems have a history of understanding increments, and applying effort to get the smallest possible to use as a wedge.Remember when the smoking police were just wanting separate no smoking areas in restaurants?..sara doen't smoke, but she remembers..now entire cities are smoke free, while the governments raise huge amount of taxes on the poor cig-addicts.
In washington state, a u.s. house Republican ..rep. Dave Reichert voted FOR the hate -crimes set-asides....people in the area think he has been targeted by move-on, to receive thousands of emails on his votes, and he doesn't know they are "seminar" crazies.achhhhhh!

If we could just get one more...

...orginalist judge on the Supreme Court we'd see some of these ridiculous laws struck down. My reason for voting straight GOP on 11/7 even though I had to hold my nose when doing so.

Come by for a visit IAHQ. DD