The other day as I read an article about a certain group who was pushing for hate crimes legislation, I wondered to myself, isn't a crime that harms another human being hateful regardless of which group the victim belongs to. Do we need to have a separate law for someone who murders a blonde versus a brunette? Do we need a new law for when an Asian person is murdered? Or should we distinguish further by imposing a stiffer penalty if a person murders two Asians who happen to be Indians? Maybe we should create some gang violence laws that have more harsh penalties for those who rob and assault people outside their race or rob citizens of other neighborhoods besides those in their counties? The endless search for an absolute upon which to found such legislation shows the absurdity of the argument for hate crimes legislation. We can't look at things through the cloudy lens of emotions, we simply need to carry out the law without regard for race or ethnic background.
If a law is broken concerning discrimination such as denying a person a job solely on the basis of race that is totally different from murdering a person because of race. Now you may say, 'but wait a minute, they murdered because of racial hatred.' I say you are absolutely correct. The objection I have is this: we already have laws in place against murder. Let us execute the laws fairly and consistently and there won't be a need for hate crimes legislation or any other law that extends laws that already exist. By coming up with hate crimes legistation we will invite an onslaught of unnecessary litigation and create special treatment for certain groups above others.
If we continue to have special interest groups that desire legislation based on emotion, feelings, inner senses, preferences, etc. we will slide further and further down a slippery slope to having more laws than we can handle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Word up.
The Luca Fam
Post a Comment