rationale behind hate crimes

[Justin Schwartz]

I don't follow you here. The concept is irrelevant to what? Moreover, I do 
not know whether hate crime legislation deters hate crimes, nor do you; and 
even if it does not, it may not be a "feel good" measure (an invidiosu 
label; I would use the term "symbolic"). It may be purely retributive. Mayby 
people. myself among them, think that retribution is a legitimate 
justification for imposing criminal sanctions. And I think that symbolic 
legislation is also fine apart from retribution: it announces a social 
commitment to a policy that may have wider affects than deterring the 
prohibited sort of action. I have no objectuion to punishing croimes 
committed from hate more severely--in principle. I would like to see a 
particular statute in black and white, of course. --jks


>
>At 04:15 PM 1/11/01 +0000, Justin wrote:
> >Advocacy of illegal conduct can only be prohibited, consistewntly with 
>the
> >first amendment, if the harm is immanent. "Kill that kike!" (addressed to 
>an
> >angry mob) is punishable. "All the kike should be killed!" (in a leaflet) 
>is
> >not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1966 S.Ct case. --jks
>
>
>So it follows that the concept of "hate crime" is simply irrelevant in this
>area, no?  Charles also argued that it is irrelevant for the punishment of
>actual crimes, since say a murder can fetch a death sentence if it is
>"premeditated" - which includes but is not limited to hatred.  It thus
>follows that the "hate crime" laws are but feel-good measures whose effect
>on "hate crime" is next to none, no?
>
>wojtek
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com