:headshake

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...story?track=rss

 

 

Vandals set fire to gay books in library

 

Tribune staff reports

Published June 14, 2006, 2:33 PM CDT

 

 

Police are looking for vandals who set fire to a collection of gay and lesbian literature at a North Side library, WGN-TV reported.

 

The fire was set Tuesday at a Chicago Public Library branch near Belmont Avenue and Sheridan Road, according to WGN.

 

Library workers spotted the fire and were able to put it out, but not before roughly 100 books were destroyed, according to WGN.

 

Library officials don't know the dollar value of the books, but told WGN that all of them will be replaced.

I thought/hoped that book burnings were a thing of the past.

Hope they find these clowns and tack hate crime on to the vandalism and arson/endangerment charges that are pending.

John Lithgow was never in favor of it

 

Hope they find these clowns and tack hate crime on to the vandalism and arson/endangerment charges that are pending.

 

Let's hope they don't. Every crime is a hate crime.

Let's hope they don't. Every crime is a hate crime.

 

I get the sentiment but I don't agree. School kids rabndomly destroying some property is differnt, and not so pregnant with deliberate and directed malice as singleing out the artistic works of a race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and making a spectacle of their destruction.

 

That's my take on it, at least.

I get the sentiment but I don't agree. School kids rabndomly destroying some property is differnt, and not so pregnant with deliberate and directed malice as singleing out the artistic works of a race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and making a spectacle of their destruction.

 

That's my take on it, at least.

 

 

tacking on time for 'hate' is a very slippery slope, my friend

 

any group that is unpopular at a certain time can be given extra long prison sentences for no apparent reason. 'hate' can be defined as so many things. burning a flag? hate crime, ect.

I get the sentiment but I don't agree. School kids rabndomly destroying some property is differnt, and not so pregnant with deliberate and directed malice as singleing out the artistic works of a race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and making a spectacle of their destruction.

 

That's my take on it, at least.

 

Motivation for a crime should affect a punishment, but it should not be a crime unto itself.

tacking on time for 'hate' is a very slippery slope, my friend

 

any group that is unpopular at a certain time can be given extra long prison sentences for no apparent reason.

 

 

That is certainly true enough, as we saw with mandatory sentences for first time drug offenders during the hey day of the 'war on drugs.'

 

 

Motivation for a crime should affect a punishment, but it should not be a crime unto itself.

 

OK, then maybe there is a semantic issue. But I certainly see the 'hate' descriptor as defining the motivation behind the nominal offense. You can't get arrested for hating. You can get arrested because you bash members of a group because you hate them. And you should risk a stiffer penalty if your crime is directed in a premeditated fashion at members of a group you hate.

ahh, book burning. The good ole days.

That is certainly true enough, as we saw with mandatory sentences for first time drug offenders during the hey day of the 'war on drugs.'

OK, then maybe there is a semantic issue. But I certainly see the 'hate' descriptor as defining the motivation behind the nominal offense. You can't get arrested for hating. You can get arrested because you bash members of a group because you hate them. And you should risk a stiffer penalty if your crime is directed in a premeditated fashion at members of a group you hate.

 

It's not a semantic difference at all. I think that judges and juries should take motivation into account when determining penalties for crime. But I don't think motivation should be in and of itself a crime.

 

Hate crime legislation makes motivation a crime. And that is wrong.

It's not a semantic difference at all. I think that judges and juries should take motivation into account when determining penalties for crime. But I don't think motivation should be in and of itself a crime.

 

Hate crime legislation makes motivation a crime. And that is wrong.

In that case it is my understanding of the law that is faulty. I assumed elevating a criminal offense to the staus of hate a crime in effect triggered the consideration of stiffer penalties basd on motivation.

It's not a semantic difference at all. I think that judges and juries should take motivation into account when determining penalties for crime. But I don't think motivation should be in and of itself a crime.

 

Hate crime legislation makes motivation a crime. And that is wrong.

 

 

In that case it is my understanding of the law that is faulty. I assumed elevating a criminal offense to the staus of hate a crime in effect triggered the consideration of stiffer penalties basd on motivation.

 

You are both right. I agree 100% with Rex that hate crimes in and of themselves should not be crimes independently. Its a ridiculous charge, and a slippery slope indeed.

 

Jim, a hate crime CAN be a factor of aggravation in an existing drime, OR it can be a seperate charge where such a law applies.

Motivation for a crime should affect a punishment, but it should not be a crime unto itself.