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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ig who wrote (125851)	7/18/2005 11:03:58 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793696

Now waitaminute: it depends on what he's thinking? What am I missing here? Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there really is a fire is not a crime. So the distinction doesn't turn merely on one's thoughts, but also whether there actually is a fire. Further, it turns on one's intentions, whether to cause a riot or to save lives (mens rea and actus reus, a wrongful intention and a wrongful act.) In what sense does killing a black man differ from killing a white man? The mens rea and the actus reus are the same. There may be a distinction based on what motivated the wrongful intention, that is to say, prejudice or hatred. If the murder itself was carried out in a particularly heinous way, say lynching or torture or other aggravating circumstances that demonstrate hatred, the law usually gives enhanced punishments for crimes which are particularly heinous. That should not depend on the color of the victim and the perpetrator. If a white man hates another white man, why should that be treated any differently than when a white man hates a black man or a black man hates a white man?