i disagree sam, you can't really punish someone or at least 'properly judge' them without taking into consideration intention. it's my opinion a mother stealing to feed her child should be punished less severely than a woman stealing luxuries for herself (e.g. alcohol).

now maybe you feel it's impossible to properly assess intention, and maybe you're right - but it's not impossible to take it into consideration when it applies (e.g. murder in standing your ground - i doubt zimmerman was just looking for an excuse to murder someone... maybe he was). i think if you can determine some intentions there's no reason not to take them into consideration.

i do not take issue with you suggesting that we should steer away from 'thought crimes' though. i read 1984.

What I'd like to see is the outrage for an obvious black on white racism crime.

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE PEOPLE?!?!?

Why aren't Jesse and Al trumpeting about this crime? Nah....don't answer that.

Intent to commit a crime is something that can be objectively proven with evidence. To apply a discriminatory qualifier to thought beyond the act of committing that crime is a step down the wrong path. The race, orientation or creed of a victim shouldn't be considered beyond deciding if a crime was premeditated or not. There should be no extra qualifier to punishment, it only continues to highlight a difference instead of accept that a crime say against a black person is equal to a crime against a white person.

We shouldn't punish or attempt to regulate thought beyond the actions those thoughts lead to. Hate crime modifiers are not the answer. Now there are issues with institutional racism and discrimination by law enforcement in how they react and investigate crime but the answer to those problems is not by adding Hate Crime qualifiers to cases.

Crime is crime Rob, I am sorry you feel so persecuted as a white man that you demand special treatment. I feel bad for how small and petty you are.






;-)

Sam,

What you are saying is not compatible with criminal law. Conspiracy to commit a crime is punishible even if there is no crime committed. Murder with malice is no less murder with malice if the malice is based on racism rather than something else. The jury is entitled to consider any testimony admitted about the defendant if that testimony is relevant to the defendant's mental state involving the alleged act.

The outrage about Trayvon came because no one get arrested/charged.

Looks like the kid in your link is.

Bad example, Rob.

Oh and he didn't kill anyone.

I can't help that he failed to get the job done.

there wouldn't be any outrage if he died. just be another black guy killing someone... will never get the press attention. This ONLY got the press attention because it mentions Trayvon.. if it was just 2 black guys jumping a white guy for being white no one would put it in a newspaper.

You must not read a lot of newspapers

My point was about extra punishment for a crime because it was racially motivated, if you intend to kill someone and then kill someone that is Murder 1, the intent shouldn't be considered worse for punishment if it was based on racial bias or not. Crime is crime is my point. I am arguing against special qualifiers for hate crimes carrying a more severe punishment. Example with made up numbers, sentence for Assault 1 10 years, for Assault 1 with a hate crime modifier 15 years. It shouldn't matter, both are assault 1 and both should carry the same punishment, I don't care if the reason was that they hate how the person looked at them or that they hate the color of the persons skin.