I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
He deserves to die
I killed him because he deserves to die
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
Let's try this: why should we not try to disincentivize a criminal's rationalization via ideological zealotry with additional sanctions?
I like this guy's answer.
https://KotakuInAction2.win/p/16ZEDzrXLJ/x/c/4TnQaxJLfxR
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.