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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (23971)	8/23/2001 1:10:12 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Good post Chris. It's obvious that you have put a lot of thought into this issue. Besides agreeing with you, I have little else to add except to observe that how the term "homophobe" has been used here lately, does point to one of the most obvious flaws in "hate crimes" type legislation. Who determines what constitutes hate, and how do you measure and punish, something as intangible as a "motive of hate". There are other aspects that bother my sense of justice as well, but I'm still a couple of hundred posts behind so I'll leave it there for now. Have a good evening. Greg

To: The Philosopher who wrote (23971)	8/23/2001 5:49:31 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

In 1986, the term "hate crime" was first defined in the report of the Attorney General: "Any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law." As a lawyer, I'm sure you appreciate that the wording was not accidental, and that the necessary condition for defining it as such requires that the "MOTIVATION" be the essential component. The motivation for hate crimes must be HATE--heartless and mindless HATE. Your concern for free thought is not unique. But it must be remembered that the thought precedes the crime. It is the act that is being punished. But there is no possible way to justify a response to the act without determining the meaning, I.E., the thoughts and the motives as they are expressed in their situational and contextual framework. Did she carry the loaf of bread out because she was stealing it? Or because she noticed a man trying to jimmy her car door? Did he kill the man because the man had kicked his dog? Or because the Commanding Officer had issued a direct order? The justice system is about human interaction and association. It is not a dry and austere exercise in separating different types of marbles, or in developing a mathematical theorem. All humans exist in relationship with their society. All humans have relationships. We have passions, we have feelings. We have attractions and dislikes--and we also have hates. Whether infractions are against the Queen, the State, the community, or the neighbour--they always involve the feelings of real people. The purpose of "justice" is to assist the human family to remain a family--but in the safest and most humane way possible. That, at least, is a rational perspective. In reality, it is mainly the process of "getting even"--by giving back pain sufficient to the pain caused. But I stray... Human justice which did not consider the meaning of the unwanted act, would nullify the meaning of the very word, "justice"--and it would thus miss the essential point of what justice is about: "Why did you do it?", we always ask. It is necessary to know. We do not punish the idea; we punish the act. But the nature of the act is determined by the ideas, motives, and inducements which engendered it. EVERY act is separate and distinct. No two are alike. It is patently obvious that TRUE "justice" WOULD consider the distinct meaning of every act of transgression within its particular uniqueness. INDEED, this would be TRUE justice--the kind that absolutists believe God is piddling with. But society has its limitations. The whores and pimps walk on both sides of the street; and the whores judge the whores, and the pimps judge the pimps. But I stray... Christopher, your concern about individualizing "justice" to too great a degree is well founded and appreciated. However, we do it to the best of our ability because we cannot help ourselves. Justice is about people. It is about feelings. It is about attachments and sympathies and prejudice. It is relative to the subjective self interests of cultures, races, families, etc. Remember that "hate crimes" include the white race. They also include males. They also include heterosexuals. If you thought any of these distinctions had the blessing of some "imaginary" justice--well, that is unfortunate. Human beings decide what is "just". Human beings decide whether you wear a veil, whether you have an abortion, whether you are well hanged or well hung. But justice exists for the perceived benefit of the human community. You and I probably both object to most of the ideas of "justice" that exist throughout the world--including our own. As a dictator you could change it to fit your own particular bias. But as a citizen in the republic you would best introduce your kids to the judges daughter at the barbeque...or don't you get invited... ;) Oh, btw...you said you wanted a color blind society. So do I. Who or what is the impediment to this? That is correct, Christopher: It is the people who are not colour blind...the people for whom the distinction of "hate crimes" was conceived. Now go do the right thing. That's D R L A U R A...