Cat Sci writes:
quote:
That, is a bit of a slippery slope in my opinion.
You act like there's no such thing as a trial where the defense gets to show that the case presented doesn't meet the standard required for the charges filed.
We already have this with other crimes. It's why there's a difference between murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide as well as varying degrees of each. The prosecution can file whatever charges they think they can establish but the defense gets to respond and point out that the standard requires certain things that the case doesn't provide. For example, first degree murder has a standard of premeditation (among others). The defense can seek to show that it wasn't premeditated and thus isn't first degree murder. And if that was the only charge filed, the defense wins. And on top of that, the prosecution has to be able to justify the charge before trial even begins.
So why is there any trouble with regard to hate crimes? It's not like the prosecution can just attach it and not have any response. They have to prove that it meets the standard for a hate crime.
Note: A crime against a person who happens to be in a class for which hate crimes laws apply is not sufficient. After all, everybody has a race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
