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: one_less who wrote (24274)	8/23/2001 10:50:28 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Rather than identify classes of people to whom such stricter laws would apply, why not make the laws stricter for everybody? After all, why isn't assault a felony in the first place?

To: one_less who wrote (24274)	8/23/2001 12:17:18 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Bill has answered this in a way that I would agree with. However I am in favor of protecting those individuals that are least able to defend themselves, such as children and the elderly, or the disabled. This is not quite the same as ascribing a motive of hate though. Simply enforcing the laws we now have would of course deal with many of the problems, however the opposite of hate crimes is that "my mother burnt my toast so I now am compelled to kill and rob everyone I come into contact with", and we believe it!. Lets teach kids to read, and stay in school, to give them a chance to become productive members of society, since the vast majority of prisoners can't read. I wonder if an ounce of prevention wouldn't be worth a pound of cure? Anyway it couldn't hurt, maybe we would just have smarter criminals, I don't know. Greg