i would've thought atlas is too smart for this "lol hate crimes don't real" crap

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

just saying

[Cassius]

Of course they do. I mean, a woman murdering her abusive husband, or alternatively a man murdering his adulterous wife could be regarded as hate crimes. That doesn't make them worse than 'bog-standard' murder (all of these are of course awful) and thus should be treated in the same manner in court.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

don't worry cassius, i didn't have any illusions about you.

[bore]

Out of curiosity, how is the distinction between manslaughter and murder tenable in light of this ruling?

[Oakvale]

We don't doubt they're real, we just noted the illegality of setting a different standard for functionally identical crimes.

Out of curiosity, how is the distinction between manslaughter and murder tenable in light of this ruling?

That's interesting. The judgement in Snowstalker v. The Midwest has no bearing on manslaughter vis a vis murder. While the Court was critical of 'hate crimes' due to the impossibility of proving motive, it also noted that in the ruling that even where motive is completely evident there is still an equal protection violation since the crimes are nonetheless functionally identical. If two perpetrators intend to murder two victims, regardless of a perceived prejudiced motive, the crimes are functionally identical. If a third perpetrator kills a third victim but the intention to murder is less obvious, or are there mitigating factors such as mental disability or impairment, that crime is not functionally identical to the former two.

To use the relevant example, charging a homophobe who kills a gay person for manslaughter rather than murder (or a 'hate crime') would not be in violation of the constitution since there remains a reasonable distinction between the two crimes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh, I could go on and on about this topic right now, but I won't. In short, hate crime laws are difficult because it's so difficult to prove whether X crime was committed because X was a gay and or not. We can't read a persons mind. Second, under an equal protection analysis, a murder is a murder, an assault is an assault. Why treat them differently? If it is apparent that one had a particularly heinous motive, the jury can decide how to rule on that.

Anyway, back to the bar studying.

[bore]

If we judge the right of equal protection to apply to consequences then manslaughter must be untenable because the end result is exactly the same. If we don't then the we're implicitly saying that we can discriminate based on motive, and if we can in some cases, I don't see why we can't in others.

I should note, BTW, that I don't actually support hate crimes legislation in practice (I recall voting for a bill abolishing them a while back sponsored by either TNF or maxwell) but I don't see the problem in theory.

[sentinel]

Woof! Meow!