Remember the proverbial “cold-blooded killer”? We used to consider him more to blame than the killer who strikes in an excess of emotion, hate, or rage. But now the tables are turned.
Since when does a person’s emotional state, when he commits a crime, render him liable to more severe punishment than if he had not experienced the emotion of hate? Since the passage of “hate” crime legislation, that’s when.
Mental states have long been recognized as increasing, or at times mitigating, guilt. Consider: murder v manslaughter, and ‘criminal intent’. But these are matters of intention.Until recently, emotion has been considered relevant to neither crime nor punishment.
It is sometimes said that crimes against “people due to personal attributes beyond their control” (http://moran.house.gov) deserve extra punishment. This position is at least arguable, although I disagree **. But to tie this to “hate” is irrelevant: a man may murder a black person just because he is black, in cold blood. Why should his punishment be more severe if, instead of ‘cold’ his blood were hot
at the time /
of the crime?
____________________
** You are responsible for who you are and what you are, no matter how God or Darwin rolled the dice, no matter whether you could ‘help it’, or not: No excuses.
<END>
