Fargo-area politicians and activists will no doubt have a lot of success milking this issue for notoriety, and donations, but even if they’re successful in implementing a policy, and even if that local policy withstands legal scrutiny under state law, it isn’t likely to change much of anything.
MINOT, N.D. — Bias crime laws, the new lingo for hate crime laws, are, from the perspective of public policy, not all that unlike policies the death penalty or sex offender laws.
They’re all great for politicians who want to fire up a certain kind of voter.
They make a certain amount of sense, at least superficially. If we want less of something, then stiffer punishment should deter it, right?
Plus, there’s the catharsis afforded by feeling like you’re really sticking it to people who do awful things.
Except, in practice, things don’t actually work that way.
The death penalty doesn’t deter crime. “[T]here is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment,” the ACLU tells us. “States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.”
Sex offender registries don’t work either. About 93% of sex crimes against children are committed by someone that child already knows, not some stranger. Around 95% of sex crimes are committed by people who wouldn’t even be on a registry in the first place.
I would argue such laws are intended to criminalize thought and emotion, and provide penalties for those that don’t think or feel “properly.” God knows registry laws certainly fit this bill.
We all know the truth it’s lifetime punishment nothing more nothing less
Hate speech is still speech and darn well should be protected.
If a nation is supporting basic online name calling like states do with SOR then why not?
Is their sound societal good in simply renaming a social ill to fit one’s political agenda?
Shall we again redefine the definition of ” marriage. ” Intermediate scrutiny used to re-define plain slavery to state property as a non-retributive regulations regime. It’s bs, intended specifically to impose affirmative restraint upon liability through the unconstitutional use of the database.
As if the biggest threat to national security and the people isn’t the database infrastructure itself. In all reality there is no such thing as cyber security!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?509988-1/solarwinds-hacking-cybersecurity-issues
Talk about the incompetence of leadership! Only idiots could have been duped into paying through the nose for tech that inevitability decreases security the more you rely on it’s CONVENIENCE!!!!!