rationale behind hate crimes

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 11 12:47:12 PST 2001


No, it doesn't need additional penalties to be retributive--maybe--maybe! for additional deterrence. But being convicted of a crime, an additional or different crime, is retribution, even if it doesn't involve addition punishment. That is why, e.g., we impose concurrent sentences. --jks


>
>It would be retributive, if it allowed a more severe penalty than those
>imposed in its absence. But as I understood Charles' argument, this is not
>the case, e.g. a murderer will still get the death penalty or a life
>sentence even in the absence of the hate crime legislation. That prompted
>my inquiry, because it seems that writing hate crme legislation into law is
>not a very effective way of stopping hate groups.
>
>A better way would be declaring certain groups, such as the Nazi party, the
>KKK, and the assorted militias as criminal (as the Nazi SS had been) and
>punishing membership or advocacy on behalf of them. My only concern is
>that, knowing the people who call themselves the government in this
>country, groups like this one would soon get similar treatment.
>
>wojtek
>

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list