Even if I personally do not agree with them. It's a slippery slope when charging someone for a crime because they don't like someone/something and speaks out. Or decides he is tired of the whole jail thing and just sits quietly fuming at home from now on instead of attacking those he don't like? Like a guy that tried to hire a hit man but it turns out to be a cop. Keep him locked up as long as possible.Ĭonspiracy to commit a crime, IIRC requires proof of planning and/or actually trying to do it. Don't like the way he feels, he might do it again? Ok give him the max for those two crimes. History or not, yes, he absolutely deserved to be charged and sentenced for theft and at least destruction of property. Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using TapatalkĬlick to expand.Just a question here, but do you think being prosecuted and punished for a possible future crime is ok? Violent attacks need to be punished regardless of who or why they are committed. I fail to remember any part of the Constitution that has any references to what group is more deserving of protection than another. How many times have we heard of someone defending themselves from an attack get charged for a crime while the attacker is called a victim and released or face minimal charges because someone might "hate" them? And too often these days, our elected officials charged with making sure everyone is treated equally under the law is picking and chosing when and which group is favored at the moment and who not to due to their perception of who is hated most at the moment. Or that any criminal act is more deserving of harsher punishment because you don't like another group. The idea that any group is more protected or more restricted in thought or voice is against our entire legal system not to mention our system of government. Our whole system is predicated on the idea that we are all judged equally. But rather or not his dislike of someone else should be a factor in how he is sentenced. I think the argument is not so much a matter of whether he needs to be locked up or not.
#16 years in jail for burning gay flag free#
Just because one bad person went free doesn't mean they all should. The intent was to point out the danger inherent in permitting the Judicial system to define particular speech or actions as 'hate speech' or 'hate crimes' based on socially popular minorities and prescribe substantially more onerous penalties. While I don't condone or agree with his beliefs or actions I support his right to believe whatever he wishes and assert his crimes should be prosecuted with equity to similar crimes irrespective of his beliefs.
'Hate crimes' and 'hate speech' are an artificial construct intended to undermine the 1st Amendment and criminalize 'unpopular' beliefs. In exactly the same way excessive prosecution of any particular group would be.
The idea that when the victim is socially popular (or a minority) the crime and subsequent sentencing is somehow enhanced is reprehensible and contrary to our system of justice. The intent was to point out the danger inherent in permitting the Judicial system to define particular speech or actions as 'hate speech' or 'hate crimes' based on socially popular minorities and prescribe substantially more onerous penalties.Īny violence perpetrated against another is essentially a 'hate crime' and is already illegal. The point of this thread had nothing to do with flag burning and everything to do with the dichotomy of similar offenses characterized and prosecuted with disturbing disparity based on the perpetrators beliefs. To the contrary it was characterized as 'brave', honorable and 'social justice'. When BLM/Antifa snatched (stole) an American flag from the hands of another and set it ablaze (arson) and/or assaulted someone there was no crime charged or prosecuted.