We're just sawing sawdust here. From your statement ("but only punish the specific thoughts relevant to the particular victim and crime"), I take it we have no disagreement over the fact that motive (thinking) does always inform the discretion of the judge.
So we do agree that thought is always to be considered as a modifier to the punishment. It always has been--in every society with even a modicum of civilization. Although I keep in mind the response of Ghandi when asked what he thought of Western Civilization: "I think it would be a great idea."!
So we both agree that the act involves the thought, and that both the act and the thought are reflected in the response of society. If I B&E because I see smoke billowing, and hear moaning--I am liable to be dealt with in a rather more lenient fashion than under some scenarios.
That leaves us with the issue of punishing thought entirely on its own merit. Haply, Chris, we are both overwhelmingly against such a policy. The very idea is abhorrent to the extreme. I see nothing up to this point, where it can be fairly said that we disagree...so I will look further.
I think, at root, your hidden argument is that the legislation in question seems too broad and too arbitrary for you to trust it to unprincipled and corrupt hands--which, of course, are everywhere. It would be like putting loaded pistols into the hands of idiots. Well, that is a point I might grant to you without seeming to resist! :)
You do seem to be introducing hypothetical examples to express your fears of where unprincipled people might take this. And that is a larger picture than I feel like looking at right now.
But pretend that the legislation is limited to the "thought control" fundamentalists of colour/creed superiority; those whom have bloodied the earth, and controlled the beliefs and behaviours of her inhabitants, off and on, since time immemorial: would you then be able to accept the "principle" that considers certain crimes as being more dangerous than others--and deserving of a more targeted and punitive response? It seems to me that this IS the "principle"--regardless of how substantial, or insubstantial, might be your fears of insincere motive, or dishonest practice.
I am not arguing whether the legislation will be abused. It will. I am not conjecturing whether or not sober minds would be advised to be scrupulous in the feedback they give the "system", so as to see that legislation does not become a lever for social manipulation, but rather a genuine attempt to improve the quality and safety of our life here on earth. They ought to do so. And I am not setting forth that rational opposition, soberly offered without hate, is offensive to me in any way, or is beyond my sympathy. It isn't; and it isn't. What I am arguing is that the "principle" is correct, and that it is one that ought to be appropriately applied to those groups who threaten, not only our community--but the entire planet.
I believe we need to stick to the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When people are advocating that you, Christopher, be harmed or killed--or likewise your family--when you have done nothing deserving of such, but rather have merely entertained your own religious beliefs--then I believe that your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being violated. Advocating "ideas" is not the same as advocating harm or death to individuals or groups--either by direct or by indirect threats. I believe that your rights are just as important as the rights of people who DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM OR ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.
Remember, you believe in those rights for everyone. They believe in them only for SOME OF THE PEOPLE. If you are not part of their group...then you are in danger of being traeted as a sub-human.
This distinction is critical: in earlier posts I spoke about a lack of commonality around the most basic human principles, which characterized the gulf which separated hate groups from our most fundamental values and beliefs. You have a way of life, a philosophy, a belief system. One which respects, honours,, and exalts the basic rights of ALL members of our society. When you come across people who DON'T believe that you, or anyone else in particular, is entitled to those same basic human rights (and the world is full of such people), then you have stumbled upon the VERY people who are THE THREAT to everything you hold dear.
So I guess the problem here is in trying to pick out who the enemy is (without the assistance of paranoia, of course). I don't believe we are flogging different principles. I know that the enemy is not ONLY the Christian hater meeting the group inside some old barn; and I hope you know the enemy is not ONLY the congressman grandstanding a new bill unto the floor. Oh! That reminds me of a Twain quote which I can't resist:
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Of course, the law can go too far. Too many "recognizable" groups simply diminishes the concept. This is to dismiss the monstrous history and alien nature of all the religious and racial wars of annihilation. But when "master race" and "chosen peoples" mentalities begin to preach and to act against the rights of others--well, surely humanity is not so small minded, or so forgetful of history, that it cannot take action under the law to protect those who are being threatened. Tell me it isn't so.
The justice system ought to remain dynamic, and not be a reflection of stagnation and decay. On the other hand, someone said that the "price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Sounds right to me.
I gotta be a way for a week or two, so will not be responding soon. |
