Thursday, April 26, 2007
Hate crime bill - Unequal valuation, protection, assistance, and access to justice under the law
All violent crimes are not "hate crimes," because I would argue the definition of "hate crime" is selectively myopic and it enforces unequal protection and status under the law. I would even go further and argue that the concept of a hate crime is completely senseless, like saying pigs can fly, because it's flawed in its fundament. (more on this later)
“In this case, Cho 'perceived' his victims to be 'rich kids.' However, under H.R. 1592, 'rich kids' are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.”
This is in itself one of the horrible injustices of having a “hate crime” law, but it also points to how the idea of privileging so-called “hate victim” categories is conceptually at fault from a law philosophy and legal rights standpoint.
“In this case, Cho 'perceived' his victims to be 'rich kids.' However, under H.R. 1592, 'rich kids' are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.”
This is in itself one of the horrible injustices of having a “hate crime” law, but it also points to how the idea of privileging so-called “hate victim” categories is conceptually at fault from a law philosophy and legal rights standpoint.
