Some thngs I'll never understand.

[coma]

Yes it is more harrowing but the question is should the penalty be more extreme on the basis of what you are. If it is than that's subjective and the law is not supposed to be that. Like i said an argument can be made either way and it is fun to debate stuff like this. Or, possibly, should you be a victim because of what YOU ARE NOT. See the dichotomy? Free Speech is an issue and I am pretty libertarian on that. However, legally, intent is often a huge part of the charges and subsequent sentencing. Robbery-Motive is getting your money. Often the beating is "incidental". Bias Crime - motive is grievous harm and a terroristic intent. Such as "you are not welcome and I will scare you into submission with violence or any one who hears of/witnesses this crime". Calling someone a name is still not a crime (regardless of the misdirection of some people who disagree with the laws). Only when it is combined with violence and NO OTHER MOTIVE does it become a crime. Example; often Caucasians are perceived as "soft" so they are targets . Robbery combined with slurs are not often charged as bias crime though it is obviously so. Reason is it's hard to prove. Sexual assault is charged as a separate crime instead of or in addition to battery because of the heinous intent of the crime. In reality it is an assault, but that is not commensurate with the terroristic intent and severe damage to the quality of life of the victim subsequent to the incident. Discretionary sentencing is the definition of subjective. Does it shock the sensibilities? If yes, you get a harsher penalty. Perhaps the way it should be. Having experience in situation similar, a robbery is usually (hopefully) over when you give up the dough. A bias assault continues until you are beaten ridiculous or dead.You cannot talk or reason yourself out of an unreasonable situation. I understand the other point of view and see the Point strongly, however US history has been rife with that sort of thing and how else can you attempt to stop it? I'd bet my balls that it has eliminated many assaults by those not totally committed ideologically (if you can call it that) to bias violence. And yes, civilized debates like this, are fun

[darth los]

Or, possibly, should you be a victim because of what YOU ARE NOT. See the dichotomy? Free Speech is an issue and I am pretty libertarian on that. However, legally, intent is often a huge part of the charges and subsequent sentencing. Robbery-Motive is getting your money. Often the beating is "incidental". Bias Crime - motive is grievous harm and a terroristic intent. Such as "you are not welcome and I will scare you into submission with violence or any one who hears of/witnesses this crime". Calling someone a name is still not a crime (regardless of the misdirection of some people who disagree with the laws). Only when it is combined with violence and NO OTHER MOTIVE does it become a crime. Example; often Caucasians are perceived as "soft" so they are targets . Robbery combined with slurs are not often charged as bias crime though it is obviously so. Reason is it's hard to prove. Sexual assault is charged as a separate crime instead of or in addition to battery because of the heinous intent of the crime. In reality it is an assault, but that is not commensurate with the terroristic intent and severe damage to the quality of life of the victim subsequent to the incident. Discretionary sentencing is the definition of subjective. Does it shock the sensibilities? If yes, you get a harsher penalty. Perhaps the way it should be. Having experience in situation similar, a robbery is usually (hopefully) over when you give up the dough. A bias assault continues until you are beaten ridiculous or dead.You cannot talk or reason yourself out of an unreasonable situation. I understand the other point of view and see the Point strongly, however US history has been rife with that sort of thing and how else can you attempt to stop it? I'd bet my balls that it has eliminated many assaults by those not totally committed ideologically (if you can call it that) to bias violence. And yes, civilized debates like this, are fun As my law professor says , you have won your case. very good coma. I'm impressed with the way you presented your case. The way you laid out your facts they're pretty much irrefutable. The bottom line is that You must prove intent to make a charge of that nature stick. Except in cases of strict liability crimes such as statutory rape or bigamy where intent is not a pre requisite.

[coma]

As my law professor says , you have won your case. very good coma. I'm impressed with the way you presented your case. The way you laid out your facts they're pretty much irrefutable. The bottom line is that You must prove intent to make a charge of that nature stick. Except in cases of strict liability crimes such as statutory rape or bigamy where intent is not a pre requisite. Thanks! In another reality I am a crusading attorney out for justice and a sweet BMW. I have actually read case law for fun. Urf. Not that I am saying I am any kind of lawyer, just the dialectical process has always interested me. And I hope I used that word correctly. I have put a lot of thought into this subject because it is not so obviously a just law. It is actually pretty radical. I also don't see how you could mitigate bias. Robbery could be "I was hungry and broke". The "gay panic" defense is the only circumstance I have heard of that had any success. The stat rape and bigamy are interesting exceptions. DO you mean the "She told me she was 18" defense?

[darth los]

The stat rape and bigamy are interesting exceptions. DO you mean the "She told me she was 18" defense? Exactly. That's what strict liability is. Whether you knew what you were doing was against the law or not the only thing that matters is that you did it. There are no mitigating circumstances. That's why stat rape is the textbook example. A minor cannot consent to sex under the law, period. Whether you knew or not is irrelavent. She could even say that it was consensual and it wouldn't matter. That's where the "strict" comes from.