terratogen wrote:
I agree. The intent is key but i think care should be taken when you change the sentence based on WHO is killed. I think it's understandable in cases of Police and such, but that mostly has to do with the cost in life and manpower that would be needed if everyone had no disincentive to resist the police. Let's say they change the hate crime bill to extend to everyone other than white straight men. Cutting it this way clearly shows the unfair discrimination. I can understand the need for tougher violence laws under some circumstances, but unless it's done with an even brush i think the cure is worse than the illness.
What if jackass B went to the gay section of town looking to kill, but couldn't find anyone walking the streets at that time of night. After some time he finds some homeless guy in a dumpster and figures he's good enough to kill. I don't believe killing homeless guy is significantly better than killing a gay person, or a minority. If it comes out during the trial that it was in fact a GAY homeless man, that should not affect sentencing. Under this law, it could.
More frequently, violence does not end in death. And even in these cases I think the circumstances of the act are more important than idiosyncrasies of the victim. Even if it was those idiosyncrasies which motivated the crime. The intent of harm for whatever reason is what needs to be addressed.
I think that works for murder, let's see how it extrapolates.
Jackass A fills his car with molotov cocktails and drives around for a while burning down places at random. Jackass B does the same but specifically targets black churches or record stores or kosher delis. Should they be treated the same?
