[ale] Way OT - Was cellphones...

[Brian Pitts]

On 06/25/2009 01:15 PM, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> We're getting there.  In my view "hate-laws" deal more with what you "think" than what you "did".  It is illegal to assault people - why should it matter "why" you assaulted them?

I try not to wade in to political discussions here, but if you're
interested in this topic it's worth reading the Supreme Court decisions
in RAV v City of St Paul and Wisconsin v Mitchell. The court tries to
draw a line that avoids penalizing speech while allowing for greater
penalties for bias-motivated crimes. From the latter case:

Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement
bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476,
488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example,
according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more
likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms
on their victims, and incite community unrest... The State's desire to
redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its
penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with
offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but
reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most
severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety
and happiness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell

-- 
All the best,
Brian Pitts