re: South Carolina likely to remain one of only two states without hate crime laws

quote:

---

Look in a mirror.

---

You're a moron. I'll help you out.

quote:

---

Hate crimes are often charged with higher sentences due to penalty enhancement laws in many jurisdictions. These laws allow for stricter punishment—such as additional prison time—when a crime is proven to be motivated by bias against a protected characteristic, like race, religion, or sexual orientation.

---

It's literal two-tiered justice.

quote:

---

A hate crime is a traditional offense—such as murder, arson, assault, or vandalism—motivated in whole or in part by the offender's bias against a victim's actual or perceived race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.

---

And the interpretation of this, in practice, is essentially that the only people whose offenders rarely, if ever, get charged with a hate crime are white males.

SC is a shithole state. Of course they are pro hate crime. OP admitted to moving and voting for hate crimes to be allowed. Sounds like you’re in the perfect place then, buddy, away from civilized society.

quote:

---

Breaking into a home means you're aware of the possibility of it being occupied which again lends itself to a higher probability of violence. Everything you asked about can be answered simply with the higher potential for violence resulting in worse punishment

---

quote:

---

They aren't

---

First, hate crimes can act as a form of community terror that intimidates not only the individual victim but an entire group. By targeting protected characteristics (age, race, religion, sexual orientation), hate crimes cause greater societal damage and warrant enhanced punishment. Hate crimes send a message to entire communities that they are unsafe, unwelcome, or inferior.

Second, like burglary, hate crimes are more psychologically traumatic than similar non-bias crimes. The victim was selected based on a characteristic the victim cannot control. The victim will feel unsafe based on a characteristic the victim cannot control.

Third, and possibly most important, hate crimes can cause members of the victims community to seek retribution. Not only against the perpetrator of the hate crime, but also against members of the perpetrator's community.

quote:

---

Do you read what you type?

---

Did you read what I typed:

quote:

---

The element of the crime does not depend on the characteristics of the victim. The element of the crime depends on whether the assailant intentionally selected the victim based on a characteristic.

---

quote:

---

The element of the crime depends on whether the assailant intentionally selected the victim based on a characteristic.

---

Unless it's spray and pray, all victims are selected on one criterion or another.

quote:

---

No pics of her but I can post pics of her dog Reggie.

---

Please post puppy pics.

quote:

---

My whole issue with it is that it directly criminalizes thought. If I kill Joe, that's murder. If I kill Joe because he's gay, that's murder *and* a hate crime. Joe is still dead. I'm still going to the electric chair for murder. What does it matter if I killed him because he's gay? The motive is inconsequential. The action is still the same.

You can't police thought. It's a slippery, dangerous slope. It leads to stuff like "hate speech," and protected classes. Which, again, destroys blind justice.

---

That is contrary to hundreds of years of common law. In most common law jurisdictions:

If you kill Joe because he was shooting at you, that's probably self defense.

If you kill Joe in a car accident, that's probably manslaughter.

If you kill Joe because he just fricked your wife, that's probable second-degree murder.

If you kill Joe after a week of planning, that's probably first-degree murder.

Joe is still dead. But you're only going to the chair for first-degree murder.

The motive is completely consequential even if the action is still the same.

quote:

---

The motive is completely consequential even if the action is still the same.

---

I notice in your list, race nor other protected characteristics were included.

Wonder why.

They are actually not "hate crime" laws. I don't know why they call them that. If they were... they would be applied equally. And they most certainly are not.

quote:

---

If you say so, but not all victims are selected based on one of the characteristics in the list: race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel.

---

Why should any of those matter more than, say... selecting a victim on their perceived wealth? Or selecting their victim on perceived isolation and opportunity?