Exactly?

Also the core point of reference (a system attempting to be utopian that ultimately fails) should actually not be the concern. The concern should be a system that succeeds at its core goals, but still continues to attempt to micromanage the citizenry. Brave New World is a perfect example of this - the system works from a baseline utilitarian standpoint of greatest happiness for the largest amount of people. Drugs, "free love", the breakup of the family, genetic engineering and relocation of subversive elements all are utilized to provide the least amount of "fuss" for the average person. Work weeks, drug doses, etc are all carefully measured out for optimal happiness

This probably wouldn't be an impossible system to set up, really. So long as all the demands of the citizenry are kept simple. That, and the systems efficacy, are what are horrifying. A stratified, sedated society, ruled from above even on a purely reproductive and genetic level

At that point the corruption ultimately doesn't matter, so long as the feeding tube never stops

🤢

Further the issue I pointed out with Psycho-Pass is that the society's predictive system assumes that its designers are utter morons. The hue system is stated to be based on stress levels. This already fails to take onto account current day psych 101 knowledge. The show then treats this knowledge like a surprise

Here is something disgusting!! 25 year old black man throws 5 year old white kid off of 3rd story balcony at Mall of America.. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/emmanuel-aranda-mall-of-america-balcony-threw-boy-went-planning-to-kill-authorities-say/?fbclid=IwAR1rNynI_NzlYikuDFgFhgC9SO8js2WjYkEeQw4nKgmrjMh-qSbh6_SNJ7Y

Not sure why their races was important.

Can you prove that it was racially motivated?

I don’t think so.

I think the guy just has a mental issue.

Because if it were reversed it would be national news and race motivation would be automatically assumed and reported. Then added to the ‘evidence’ of white supremacy violence.

That doesn't mean he did it out of prejudice.

Only basically just said that it should necessarily beblooked at as a state crime because of who wants involved.

Unless you're a nationalist, that's a VERY dangerous road to go down.

Plus the idea of having "hate crimes" is stupid in the first place. They should be removed

That's a different argument, but I kinda disagree. I think motivations should be determined, but not that people who commit them should be punished any more harshly. Like me throwing a black baby off a building, bwcause I hate blacks, shouldn't be punished any worse than me throwing it off a building because I feel like it.

Motivation can be determined without applying additional charges, also your motivation is irrelevant in the case of crime

Hate crime law violates the 5th amendment

I disagree. Motivation in absolutely necessary to determine. You been to we able to determine ***why*** someone shot aomeone else. Was it a personal dispute, racial emnity, self defense? These need to be determined.

How does a hate crime violate your right to not incriminate yourself?

@Deleted User
There are motiveless crimes; Ussually a psychopathology is involved, but there have been totally motiveless crimes committed.
*shrug*

5th ammendment is more than not incriminating yourself.

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Oh I don't disagree, and these people should be treated for whatever disorder they have. There are exceptions. @Mandatory Carry

You cant be tried for the same crime twice, seperating motive from action creates a scenario where you can be

thats not true

Not really...

a murderer

wrote a letter to the family

and got tried again

because new evidence surfaced

the letter

cant be treied with the same evidence again

but if new evidence arised

fair game

Oh Jesus Christ, write all once, not. One. Word. At. A. Time.

just look at it as a cracked out haikou

Once a trial is over, irrespective of in later coming out what motivated the crime in question, they can't be tried again.
Separating intent from the crime doesn't mean you can be tried for the same crime twice. Emmit Till (probably spelling that wrong) demonstrates this.

the letter provided additional details pertaining to the case

if additional evidence arises they can be prosecuted again for the same exact crime

@Diddycon oh no, I'm not arguing with you. You're right. The reasoning behind a crime being committed isn't enough evidence for charging someone, which is why I can't really chsrged for beating up my neighbor, even though we have had property disputes (he was bratenbup a few months ago. I'd have motivation, but motivation!=solid evidence)

I was agreeing. Intent doesn't mean that much