More on hate crimes….

Welcome Deep Dives Social Engineering More on hate crimes….

  • #29805

    Byron
    Participant

    Why doesn’t Georgia have a hate crime law?

     

    Questions:

    1. Without taking a stance on its merits, there is a case to be made that the death penalty has little/no deterrent effects.   If that is true, could we not say the same about “hate crime” laws?
    2. Can we OBJECTIVELY say (as a society or even as a species) that it is ultimately more harmful to society to commit armed robbery (as an example) because the target was _______ [fill in a demographic] versus because the target “seemed vulnerable”?   On a societal basis, wouldn’t the universe of “seemed vulnerable” encompass a larger portion and therefore those targeting the vulnerable posed an ongoing threat to a larger swath of the population?

    I’m only exaggerating my point a little–for effect–but, this whole concept of “hate crimes” is not only a slippery slope, I don’t think the stated/implied rationale stands up to logic.

Viewing 1 reply thread
    • #29814

      So, Byron, you and I have had a few discussions here, and I want to thank you for providing thoughtful discussions. It’s good.

      I agree with you a lot here. I really just want to an add an observation. I’ve been mulling this over a bit, and it may make some people angry.

      I think that the group of “vulnerable” would largely encompass the same people as “hate crime” depending upon what is deemed as vulnerable. For example, if a male attacked a woman, it is arguable that the woman was “vulnerable” as men are often more powerful physically than are women. This would also hold as true for mobs. So, if a group of WASPy dudes went after a group of Jewish folk, the Jewish folk are far outnumbered and therefore vulnerable in a certain sense. Legally speaking, a black man is vulnerable to a white man as the courts are often far harsher on blacks than on whites. These comparisons could be made ad nauseum. Essentially, it would seem that only a cis gendered straight white male would be capable of committing a hate crime in the anglosphere.

      The part of this that I find rather odd (and just a bit humorous) is that the left is the side arguing for legal protections of minorities and vulnerable groups while simultaneously arguing for more direct democracy, and it is direct democracy that is the single most dangerous political innovation for minorities.

    • #29815

      Byron
      Participant

      Yes…I believe that we’re on the same page.   The logical conclusion to my second point/question is that—given context—any victim be considered “vulnerable” (virtually a prerequisite for victimhood), then it is preying upon the vulnerable that is the ongoing threat to society and that this threat is greater in magnitude than any secondary threat owing to any number of motives (including demographic animus) by definition.

      In other words, if you MUST have some other crime in order to have a hate crime….AND crimes in general target the perceived vulnerable*—then hate crimes must be a subset of crimes targeting the vulnerable.  Therefore the universe of perceived vulnerable (in aggregate–among all criminals and would-be criminals) is larger than the universe of potential hate crime victims.   So someone committing a crime purely based on perceived vulnerability poses a threat to a larger universe of people than does someone targeting a subset of the perceived vulnerable.  That being the case—why does the latter draw a harsher penalty owing to that second derivative of their offense?

      *perceived vulnerable = you rob someone because you think you can get away with it….you batter someone because you believe you can do so without threat of an effective defense….you verbally assault someone because you believe that your words will be harmful….etc.

      Direct democracy is great when you believe that you can/should TELL others what to think!

Viewing 1 reply thread

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.