Thursday, March 29, 2012

1st opposition, Stanford, Faris M. 8 minutes

Thank you Alaska! Faris says in opening.

Only in 2009 did Obama sign legislation that brings our justice system in line with our moral values.

Hate crime is not expression. We are not judging viewpoints. But premeditation is treated differently in a court of law. Juries have to figure out motive all the time. Defending the priniciple that crimes against a protected class of people should get heightened punishment.

Juries deal with discrimination all the time.

Hate crimes that bring heightened penalties are constitutional because third parties are affected.

What makes a hate crime distinct?  Not because of what you did, but who you are. You cannot fix your race or identity.

Third parties. A hate crime sends a signal not only about this individual, but the broader community itself. They may suffer the same consequences.

Brett: Any crime carries weight to the third parties.

When you mix in context of history, state abuse of a group.  Gives rise to greater degree of social discord.

An individual who decides to commit a crime against an individual because of a charracgeristic they do not like, harm first to the individual, and to third parties.

Anti-discrimination laws already do all this. Why should hate crime be different?

No comments:

Post a Comment