His argument was honestly that you punish the crime itself, and if you are adding punishment because of what someone said during a crime with racial / homophobic slurs, you are therefore punishing what they 'said" and that should be protected...
-
-
Show this thread
-
The cognitive dissonance of this stunning for lots of obvious reasons, but I'm going to stick with two simple points. The first is that of course you include what was said because it gives insight into motive and motive 100% dictates both the level of the crime and the punishment
Show this thread -
Hell, motive is what literally differentiates the degree of murder charges. So of course we account for motive, as it's the single most important element. Arguing against that holds precisely zero water.
Show this thread -
The second point is that if you are going to bend over backwards to say that hate crime legislation shouldn't exist despite the myriad of reasons it needs to, you might want to take a look in the fucking mirror as to why and get real with yourself.
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sounds like this guy didn't read Wisconsin, Petitioner v. Todd Mitchell.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yep! Intent is a pretty basic element of 95% of crimes, this doesn’t make law enforcement into the Thought Police or something.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.