Explores the legal gravity of hate, critiquing the argument for hate crime laws. The Matthew Shepard & James Byrd prosecutions are discussed before providing a brief historical overview of hate crime laws in the US. Legal responses to hate violence that do not look to regulate opinion are next looked at. It is argued that supporters of hate crime laws tend to expand the concept of conspiracy in a dangerous manner. Other problems related to intent, state of mind, & belief are touched on. The prospect that hate crime laws might lead to hate speech laws is addressed, & it is concluded that actual crimes should be punished rather than the motivating beliefs of offenders. Adapted from the source document.
I propose a dual conceptualization of violent crime. Since violent crime is both violence and crime, theories of aggression and deviance are required to understand it. I argue that both harm-doing and rule breaking are instrumental behaviors and that a bounded rational choice approach can account for both behaviors. However, while some of the causes of harm-doing and deviance (and violent and nonviolent crime) are the same, some are different. Theories of crime and deviance cannot explain why one only observes individual and group differences in violent crime and theories of aggression and violence cannot explain why one observes differences in all types of crimes. Such theories are "barking up the wrong tree.". Adapted from the source document.