One oddity of laws against “hate crimes,” in addition to their Orwellian thought crimes aspect, is that someone who commits a crime out of “hate” should by today’s liberal logic be punished less, not more, for the crime.
Hate aimed at entire groups of human beings is, at its core, a manifestation of irrationality, mental blindness, Pavlovian conditioning, rabid emotionalism, a kind of insanity.
Liberal lawyers have established the legal doctrine that violent criminals may be found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Mental instability, they have argued with varying degrees of success in court, should mitigate defendant guilt -- even when the mind is bent by such odd influences as eating Rice-a-Roni or Twinkies, or - for women - as committing murder during the temporary hormonal derangement of Premenstrual Syndrome, PMS. Juries are somewhat less likely to make allowances for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs, although these too arguably take the user out of his or her “right mind.”
Why, then, is not the mind-poisoning influence of “hate” regarded as a mitigating rather than punishment-enhancing factor in the judgment of wrongdoers?
Lowell Ponte
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *