|
Who Do You Want To Hate Today?
On Legislating Thought
I am so incredibly pissed off about the idea of hate crimes. In general.
First of all, why is it that you should get a lighter sentence for committing
a crime just because you're a fucked-up person? And what exactly will
the guvmint constitute "hate"? Basically, hate crime laws would allow
congress or the courts to legislate thought. It would mean that a man's
ideological beliefs are what deserve punishment, not his actions. By
giving this sort of authority to the government, you basically destroy
freedom of thought.
One would think that by committing a crime, punishment should be equal
among all citizens. Isn't that the very definition of legal justice?
Basically, hate crimes legislation will allow a court to rule that a
man's thoughts make his crime worse. Isn't committing the crime bad
enough? How far does one extend the idea? It's wrong and ridiculous
that the motive of a crime should determine the severity of the punishment.
Men should be free to think evil thoughts, but not to act on them. We
can morally condemn a man who honestly believes that Jews are inferior
as humans, but he doesn't deserve any further physical or legal condemnation
until he acts on that belief. If he kills a Jew because he hates jews,
his punishment should be no more nor less severe than the man who kills
the store clerk in a robbery or the gangster who kills a random strager
for initiation rites.
The underlying rule of justice should be the severity of the criminal
action, not the ideas and motives behind it. Like freedom of speech,
freedom to hold ideas, however bland, disgusting or evil, is the realm
of moral jugement, in which the government has no place. And yet we
continue to bestow this power upon the courts. It is wrong. So wrong.
The government could arbitrarily decide that one set of ideals are
illegal and another are fine. White supremicists are to be tried under
hate crimes laws, but not Mafia bosses. Gay bashers are to be given
harsher sentences than gangsters. It's a contradiction of justice, and
introducing it into the legal system is dangerous and horrible. I fully
support any congressman who is willing to fillibuster this bill into
oblivion. Damn the "democracy" advocates who scream "if the majority
of people support hate crimes legislation, we need it."
What would those "democracy whores" have said in the 1890s South when
the majority of people supported segregation and discrimination and
pseudo-slavery? The purpose of a legal constitution and the rule of
law is to provide a check against mob rule. Democracy without a rational
and just legal system is just that - mob rule. Think about that as you
formulate your opinions every day. Just like the "protection of marriage"
acts most states passed a few years ago, it's a contradiction of justice
for the majority to be able to remove the rights of a minority. Just
because most people find white power fascists and gay-bashing blockheads
to be vile and dispicable does not mean they deserve a different set
of legal rights on any level.
Do the crime, do the time, regardless of your reasons for committing
the crime. That's the way a just legal system works, and it's the only
way a legal system can work. The Founding Fathers had a choice: tyrant
rule, like the system they'd escaped in England, mob rule, which would
mean nothing less than perpetual revolution (notice that most socialist
states advocate a mass perpetual revolutionary atmosphere), or the rule
of law. Only one of these can preserve justice and longevity for a nation.
America has the oldest federal constitution in the world. Why do so
many people want to destroy it?
A snarky, vapid piece on a recent front page of the Chronicle inspired
me here. The author advocated mob rule through unchecked democracy;
and hate crimes legislation as a just means of enforcing official government
ideology. "Democracy" and "hate" are call words which make the brainless
ballast of society perk up and start their shrill screaming; but actually
making people understand what they're screaming about is seldom the
point of journalism. Would that journalists were more interested in
reporting unslanted news and rational arguments than simply contrubiting
to the ever-increasing shrillness of the screaming.
|