Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (45619)	10/12/2000 5:30:09 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Better! Judges are allowed to take aggravating circumstances into account. Since I do not see why killing a minority is more heinous than, for example, killing one's children to expedite an affair, as occurred with Susan Smith, and I do not see why we need separate laws to cover all aggravating circumstances, I do not think "hate crimes" legislation is justified. One of the problems is that there is a First Amendment consideration. Insofar as the crime is symbolic, the symbolism itself cannot be criminalized, however offensive, under current Free Speech doctrine. Only elements of the crime divorced from symbolism can be prosecuted, such as vandalism or harassment. Thus, in certain instances where I might agree to a hate crime law, such as cross burning on someone's front lawn, it is actually unconstitutional to punish the symbolism. Now, if we get more conservatives on the Supreme Court, perhaps such absurdities can be remedied, and we can prosecute symbolic actions that are unnecessary to purveying a point of view, such as cross burning and flag burning........