That’s what I’m wondering. Maybe I missed something in the news, but all I know is he burned his own church, but that doesn’t make it a hoax. It’s entirely possible the guy is a rabid Trumpist.
So you are agreeing that crimes based on what a person is thinking should be tried differently? Then you’re agreeing with my point and disagreeing with Darren Garrison’s point.
No, he’s disagreeing with the straw me that you’ve constructed.
Now ? I thought Donpeyote’s schtick was “stupid” from the beginning. Did he have a golden age of wisdom that I slept through?
You’re conflating the effect with the action/intent.
Person A (accident) didn’t intend to kill anyone. He fell asleep at the wheel, lost control on ice/snow/rain/whatever, dodged a stray animal crossing the street, was possibly under the influence, wasn’t paying attention to a pedestrian in the crosswalk, whatever. Unfortunately, his action (previous sentence) caused the death of someone. This person could be guilty of manslaughter, depending on the situation and egregiousness of his negligence.
Person B ran down someone he hated (for whatever reason), causing the death of someone. This person could be guilty of murder, seeing as the effect was the intended result of his action.
I’m still unsure where I stand on hate crimes, because both sides have valid arguments and pitfalls. The analogy doesn’t fit the discussion, however.
Moderating
Hate speech is prohibited even in the Pit. Buh-bye.
Colibri
Apparently, he… cannot.
I’m leery of hate crimes laws… but I also think there are situations in which they’re very appropriate.
We punish acts based (loosely) on how harmful they are, and how much we hope they never happen again.
Joe spray paints a penis on a church. What damage is done? Well, the church is embarrassed and has to clean the penis off. So we arrest and punish Joe.
Jack spray paints a swastika on a synagogue. What damage is done? The entire congregation is going to worry about their safety. Neo-nazis in the community will feel emboldened. Even if the purely monetary physical damage is the same as the penis on the church, the actual damage done to the community is far far greater. Therefore it makes sense to punish Jack more severely.
Banned name!
So - a “Trumpist” in your opinion would burn his own church and spray paint “Vote Trump” on it?
Well, we know of Trumpists who are dependent on the ACA and voted for the guy promising to repeal it, so that’s a potentially more suicidal decision than trashing a church…
Is there a difference in a drunk driving accident versus a distracted driver accident? Both are accidents but we consider the state of mind in the former to be of interest in the crime of the accident. The point remains that what a person is or is not thinking is and should be a factor in prosecution. Either way, the daughter is killed, we have created social constructions that determine the rationale of the death to be of interest.
Good riddance.