How a Pointless Brain Spasm Becomes a Law
In the context of selective lack of prosecution against anti-Christians, Jimmy Akin made the following statement:
I have a quibble about one point: Just because the law may provide a penalty does not mean that the penalty is just. The law can overreach justice, and I think that is what happens with "hate crime" legislation.
Such legislation selectively isolates motive in some cases in order to extend special protections to certian groups (the targets of the "hate"). In reality, anybody who has a crime committed against him is the victim of malice, and to create certain classes protected by "hate crime" legislation selectively favors these classes over others, who are equally victims of malice. This contributes to the polarization of our society and works against the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.
Consequently, I don't favor hate crimes legislation. I don't favor it when it works to the benefits of groups to which I don't belong or of groups to which I do belong (e.g., Catholics, Christians, religious people, pro-lifers).
To my mind, if someone commits vandalism, you charge him with vandalism. You don't charge him with vandalism plus harming a specially-protected group.
So, to the folks down in Lousiana, I say: Run these malefactors out of town on a rail, but do it on the vandalism charge, not the "hate crimes" charge. We'll all be better off the sooner we get over this "hate crimes" nonsense.
While I believe that Jimmy is right (the vandalism charge should be enough), I broadened the examination a little bit in the comments section:
Looking at this from a broader sense, it's not really about protection of special groups. It's about having to come up with new laws because we don't enforce the old ones.
Here's a hypothetical example:
All states have laws against speeding, but these laws are not always enforced.
One day in a central California city, a near-sighted woman carrying a shopping bag of avocados is in a crosswalk next to an elementary school, and is nearly hit by a driver talking on a cell phone, eating a taco, and driving 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. The woman drops the avocados, and two of them are badly bruised.
Now, in the rational world, the driver would be cited for speeding. Unfortunately, several political advisers to California Assemblypersons read the story about the near-miss, and each of them came up with his/her own solution to make sure that this terrible event would never happen again.
The first one gets a bill through the Assembly banning cell phone use in moving cars.
The second one gets a bill through the Assembly banning eating in moving cars (although California products such as avocados were eventually excluded from the ban).
The third one gets a bill through the Assembly providing special protection to people with vision problems (and, via amendment, providing special protection to people under 5' 6" and over 6' 1").
The fourth one gets a bill through the Assembly allowing civil lawsuits (including pain and suffering) for persons who lose personal property in a school zone due to a threat to the public safety (although an amendment explicitly stated that blaring rap music was NOT a threat to the public safety).
All four Assemblypersons bragged about the bills they had passed, and proclaimed to one and all that California was now a safer place because of their prompt action on behalf of the people.
Comments