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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (37419)	3/9/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

The problem with "hate" crime designations is that what underlies the concept is to assign a heavier penalty for such crimes. While I agree with you that on a philosophical level killing someone because of the color of their skin is deeply repugnant, so too is killing for the $20 bill. We have always had as part of the effort to prove murder determining the motive, which is fine. But the "motive" assessment should only be relevant as a means of helping to determine guilt. Not degrees of guilt, as though somehow a person guilty of "hate" crime should be more severely punished than any other murderer. Or perhaps to turn the argument around, to say that a person who "only" murdered for the $20 somehow deserves less judgement. bp