3 ms·

So much comes to mind: * hate crime laws are institutionalized double jeopardy. * much of kitchen hygiene are just rituals. * early infanticide isn't so bad.

So much comes to mind: * hate crime laws are institutionalized double jeopardy. * much of kitchen hygiene are just rituals. * early infanticide isn't so bad. (Avoiding gender stuff because that's been done to death)

gizmo686 9y ago
In his follow-up, he makes the point that producing this sort of list gives a false sense of comfort as (almost by definition) you produce controversial opinions that are nevertheless acceptable to say. I personally have views that are far more controversial than those, and which I am absolutly not willing to post publicly (even pseudo-anonymously). Having said that (and falling into the de-railing track): >hate crime laws are institutionalized double jeopardy. How so? I am not an expert (and only have any knowledge of the US system), but aren't hate crimes considered enhancers to existing crimes. That is, to be found guilty of a hate crime, you must also be found guilty of an underlying crime; if you are found not-guilty of the actual crime, then you can not be tried for the hate crime. Being found guilty of a hate crime only serves to increase the severity of punishment for a normal crime that you have been convicted of.
- jnwatson 9y ago
  The enhancement aspect is jurisdiction-specific. I should have added "federal" in front. Most often when we hear about hate crimes, it is regarding a separate federal case, prosecuted independently from the local or state case.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Ah, that makes sense. Still, this is a more general issue that hate crimes. Each state (and the federal government) are considered separate entities, which means that double jeopardy does not prohibit being tried for the same crime multiple times, so long as you are being tried by different states (or the federal government). It is not nessasary to have a hate crime for this principle to be invoked. It is also not unreasonable by modern standards to disagree with this; it is just an odditiy of the American legal system that most people never think about.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gizmo686 9y ago

In his follow-up, he makes the point that producing this sort of list gives a false sense of comfort as (almost by definition) you produce controversial opinions that are nevertheless acceptable to say. I personally have views that are far more controversial than those, and which I am absolutly not willing to post publicly (even pseudo-anonymously). Having said that (and falling into the de-railing track): >hate crime laws are institutionalized double jeopardy. How so? I am not an expert (and only have any knowledge of the US system), but aren't hate crimes considered enhancers to existing crimes. That is, to be found guilty of a hate crime, you must also be found guilty of an underlying crime; if you are found not-guilty of the actual crime, then you can not be tried for the hate crime. Being found guilty of a hate crime only serves to increase the severity of punishment for a normal crime that you have been convicted of.

jnwatson 9y ago
The enhancement aspect is jurisdiction-specific. I should have added "federal" in front. Most often when we hear about hate crimes, it is regarding a separate federal case, prosecuted independently from the local or state case.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  Ah, that makes sense. Still, this is a more general issue that hate crimes. Each state (and the federal government) are considered separate entities, which means that double jeopardy does not prohibit being tried for the same crime multiple times, so long as you are being tried by different states (or the federal government). It is not nessasary to have a hate crime for this principle to be invoked. It is also not unreasonable by modern standards to disagree with this; it is just an odditiy of the American legal system that most people never think about.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]