If no the hate only serves to punish you for the same crime twice, double punishment

taht i dont follow

because u can be exonerated of murder and still be charged with manslaughter

for the same incident

https://youtu.be/D7xD1krG9eI

yea i happen to agree with that guy, its more of a first amendment issue then 5th

And can a white supremacist kill a jew and it not be racially motivated? Of course. The idea of hate crimes is just a way to expand punishment on idealogies that the court doesnt agree with

And how would that white supremacist prove that the killing of the jew was not racially motivated

u cant be asked to prove a negative

its the onus of the prosecution to prove it was

and our legal system is not black and white, the judge and jurors are typically pretty savvy

How would you prove the motive? Point at his tattoo?

Jurors aren't savvy, they are your peers, no smarter than you or i

lots of ways, but im not here to do a hypothetical prosecutors job for them!

I wouldnt want me on a jury

chances are u wouldn't be selected then. and a collective body of 12 people discussing facts is smarter then the average bear

My wife has been on a jury, and i wouldnt want her either

you aren't gonna convince me based on anecdote!

id rather have jurors then arbiters of justice

Me either, but that doesnt mean either can intellegently seperate ideology from motive

I think alot of it has to do with our attempt to punish things we find detestable, like killing a black dude cuz hes a black dude. I would argue their is a delineation between that and killing a black dude for fucking ur wife- its not cuz hes black its cuz his cock is in ur wife

and hate crime laws are trying to account for that delineation

its a reductive response and i dont want to discount the merit of your argument. Which i gathered as an ideology should not be punishable by law, which is what that video alluded to. I can totally see the argument where it infringes upon the first amendment.

Killing the guy fckn your wife could be a crime of passion and therefore not premeditated, therefore is already subject to lesser charge than murder 1

Its kind of like charging someone with reckless driving and driving under the influence at the same time

i guess i should have worded it better to account for the premise. If u walked into in a killed him yea, but say u discovered the pattern and made the decision to end his life.

a for useful scenario would be remorse in criminal procedings, in sentencing a judge will account for the defendants attitude towards a crime. if the defendant does not see what they did as wrong we treat it differently then if they show genuine remorse and understanding. in this scenario you would be punishing to sociopathic tendencies or ideology that what they did was justified.

Remorse is an argument about the role of criminal justice is it reform or punitive? Hate crimes have nothing to do with reform, its all punitive

the important word in the concept of criminal justice is justice

The system is meant to serve justice. which Intent can and is used to determine what is required of the system.

so say you put pig bloods on a mosques door handle. without ideology involved it would be a simple vandalism

this is where the concept of hate crime, ideology, and intent would come into factors.

It still comes down to the question of wether or not you can have a hate crime in the absence of any other crime. If you can then your punishing idealogy. If you can't them your creating a double jeopardy scenario

Pigs blood on a mosque door is simply vandalism

yea but mussies touching pigs blood condemns them to hell

in their ideology so its seen as a more obscene gesture then vandalism

Doesnt matter, the state is not supposed to interpret or enforce religion

a religion is free from the state, a state is not neccesarily free from religion

which we are actually seeing this play out in the courts today

So your saying if im uniquely offended by your action you should be uniquely punished?

if my intent was to uniquely offend you