You misunderstand what law is supposed to be
❝❝Again, ANY crime threatens the foundation of a civil society.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Murder is murder. Theft is theft. Vandalism is vandalism.
You can try to qualify it all you want, but cramming people into labels and saying that crimes against Label J are worse than crimes against Label K sets up a false and very disruptive imbalance.
How is that different than the bias that prevailed during the first half of the 20th? If racial (or whatever) bias was wrong then, why is it acceptable now?
Wowing people with complications doesn't change the nature of things. It only changes the nature of the discussion, and only then if all sides involved in the discussion accept the premise.
Lawyers who write laws are presenting themselves as unquestioned, expert authority. They have a vested interest in making the law as complex and as beyond average understanding as they can.
Does it really matter to the "vast majority of people?"
Or are they more interested in justice? Something that these complications can remove from the equation. Suddenly it depends on the prosecutor to select the "degrees" and punishment. That discretion is removed from the judge.
The natural movement of a system is to place more reliance on the system and the institution and less on the "human element." Never mind that humans are the reason for the system. When humans have to comply to the system rather than the system complying to humans, things become less free and humans will react badly. Judgement should be something more than checking off boxes to see what someone can be charged with.
And I strongly disagree with your disagreement.
❝Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don’t.❞
That's another of my pass-alongs. I can intend to get up and take a shower. But until I actually DO it, the shower is only an idle thought. It doesn't matter how much I may need it. It doesn't matter if I plan to shampoo or not. Until I get in the shower and turn on the water, it's idle speculation.
Why is this reading more and more like thoughtcrime?
You can't prove hate. You can't disprove it either.
Nearly every day I'm accused of being misogynist or anti-LGBT. I'm not, I'm just not deferring to the demands for special privilege. Yet that is hate by their "standards."
You know what can be proven? If someone has been killed by another human.
But by your arguments, intention makes a crime worse.
You've finally unearthed the dirty secret behind "hate crimes." Or maybe you've just admitted it to yourself. Hate crime law seeks to define thought crime.
If the intent is nothing without the act AND the intent cannot be accurately measured, doesn't it make more sense to focus on the act?
I'm not disputing who was attacked. I'm objecting to the law defining the same action as different crimes depending on something that cannot be defined, intent, and something that is subject to interpretation, group membership.
Almost immediately, there was a push to start defining EVERY crime as a hate crime because that is what gets the biggest punishment and the biggest headlines It weakens the law even as it sets up special classes that will be treated differently because they are "naturally victims."
By definition, a non-hate crime isn't as bad. It weakens the law.
And for what? So some politicos can take credit for getting tough on hate crime.
It's virtue signaling, one of the worst reasons for any law.
Tell me, how do you measure intent without the act?
And who decides if the man was hit because he was being a jerk or because of his heritage? Should it be Orthodox or Reform? How about if he is a non-practicing Jew?
Why qualify it at all?
You can't measure intent. You can however measure a crime. More accurately you can measure a mala in se crime that causes damage to life, liberty, or property. Qualifying by intent inevitably leads to proclaiming that "this" crime is inherently "worse" because of something that can't be measured. Soon all crimes are qualified because it is the only way any crime can be prosecuted.
You misunderstand what law is supposed to be. The law (especially American law) defends liberty. Law is not the means to control others, although politicos will tell you that it is. They'll tell you in great detail about how law can make things better "for your own good." They'll telling you that sacrificing a little liberty will bring about a better society.
The politicos are lying.
The politicos see law as the instrument of societal control and the means to perpetuate and expand their power.
That's why there are unjust laws. That's why there are complications in the law. That's why people don't question the law.
A little law can be good. But law has no virtue because it is law. And law that pretends to be a moral instrument and removes human judgment and compassion is not just nor good law.
So when we have mandatory minimum sentencing, or hate crimes, or laws that favor one label over another, that is perverting the rule of law.
And sadly, that seems to be how most progressive leaders believe they will achieve their ends.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus