Comments on: Equal condescension under law http://whiteperil.com/2009/05/01/equal-condescension-under-law/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:07:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Sean Kinsell http://whiteperil.com/2009/05/01/equal-condescension-under-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3394 Sean Kinsell Mon, 04 May 2009 01:12:23 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=1654#comment-3394 Luke, I don't disagree that the likelhood that an offender will become a repeat offender should be factored into sentencing, but to my knowledge it already is. And obviously it's more offensive to vandalize a synagogue with a swastika than with "Katie and Jake forever!" I'm not sure it constitutes a credible threat in all, or even most, cases, though. Plenty of people are all talk, even those who bluster about wanting to murder their spouses or the like. I'm not saying that makes their behavior okay, only that punishing people for hypothetical future crimes is not something we should be undertaking lightly. Swastika-painters should be charged with vandalism and shunned by civilized people, but it seems to me that if there were good, hard evidence that such behavior had a high probability of being a gateway to actual assault or destruction of property, we'd have heard about it by now. <BR /> <BR />And how are we going to define "punishment" here? I mean, if someone mugs you because you're wearing expensive clothes and walking around in a dreamy haze, isn't he punishing you for appearing like a rich pushover? He didn't choose the former boxer in cheap sweats who walked down the street thirty seconds before you, after all. Luke, I don’t disagree that the likelhood that an offender will become a repeat offender should be factored into sentencing, but to my knowledge it already is. And obviously it’s more offensive to vandalize a synagogue with a swastika than with “Katie and Jake forever!” I’m not sure it constitutes a credible threat in all, or even most, cases, though. Plenty of people are all talk, even those who bluster about wanting to murder their spouses or the like. I’m not saying that makes their behavior okay, only that punishing people for hypothetical future crimes is not something we should be undertaking lightly. Swastika-painters should be charged with vandalism and shunned by civilized people, but it seems to me that if there were good, hard evidence that such behavior had a high probability of being a gateway to actual assault or destruction of property, we’d have heard about it by now.

And how are we going to define “punishment” here? I mean, if someone mugs you because you’re wearing expensive clothes and walking around in a dreamy haze, isn’t he punishing you for appearing like a rich pushover? He didn’t choose the former boxer in cheap sweats who walked down the street thirty seconds before you, after all.

]]> By: Luke Baggins http://whiteperil.com/2009/05/01/equal-condescension-under-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3393 Luke Baggins Mon, 04 May 2009 00:24:56 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=1654#comment-3393 The threat of violence is a form of violence which the law as I understand it rightfully punishes. Would you agree that painting a swastika on a synagogue is more than just vandalism? I think it is. And I don't think that Jews are more vulnerable than any other groups or have any kind of hive mind, but I do think that the perpetrator of this hypothetical vandalism has made a violent threat against all of them in addition to damaging some property. It is legitimately two crimes in one and it should be prosecuted as such. <BR /> <BR />I think attacking someone explicitly as punishment for their membership in a group is both an assault on that individual and a credible threat of violence against everyone else in that group. <BR /> <BR />The label "hate crime" is not the best, and there is some merit to arguing what the federal government's role should be or whether it should have one. But I do see a basis for this kind of concept that doesn't depend on certain groups being extra vulnerable. The threat of violence is a form of violence which the law as I understand it rightfully punishes. Would you agree that painting a swastika on a synagogue is more than just vandalism? I think it is. And I don’t think that Jews are more vulnerable than any other groups or have any kind of hive mind, but I do think that the perpetrator of this hypothetical vandalism has made a violent threat against all of them in addition to damaging some property. It is legitimately two crimes in one and it should be prosecuted as such.

I think attacking someone explicitly as punishment for their membership in a group is both an assault on that individual and a credible threat of violence against everyone else in that group.

The label “hate crime” is not the best, and there is some merit to arguing what the federal government’s role should be or whether it should have one. But I do see a basis for this kind of concept that doesn’t depend on certain groups being extra vulnerable.

]]>