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

Protecting omes right to religion is not the same thing as targeted justice based on religion

thats how the law is interpreted currently.

which I totally see the merit of your argument.

I know how its interpreted, my case was that it violates the bill of rights

problem is we gave women the vote, which allowed empathy to seep into the judiciary

repeal 19th amendment

¿When do y'all start filling the voice chat?

I start feeling it about a hald hour after i take my purple pill

but thanks for the discourse putz.

ima go weed my garden

Have fun, ive been procrastinating running, dont have the energy today and need to put in around 5 miles, can't seem to clear the first step, lol