Bravo again. I think it's probably super hard to distinguish anti-discrimination law, which I fully support, from hate-motivated enhancements. You're effectively punishing the person more for discriminating in victim selection. I don't love it. I want to say something like, in the real estate case or any public accommodation case, the cr…
Bravo again. I think it's probably super hard to distinguish anti-discrimination law, which I fully support, from hate-motivated enhancements. You're effectively punishing the person more for discriminating in victim selection. I don't love it. I want to say something like, in the real estate case or any public accommodation case, the crime *is* the discrimination -- the denial of service or whatever -- and not the thoughts or feelings of the discriminator, except as necessary to prove that the discrimination took place, but that seems perilously close to a distinction without a difference, so big point to you on that one. Makes me want to read up more on the issue which I think has crossed Eric's desk a few times over the years.
Bravo again. I think it's probably super hard to distinguish anti-discrimination law, which I fully support, from hate-motivated enhancements. You're effectively punishing the person more for discriminating in victim selection. I don't love it. I want to say something like, in the real estate case or any public accommodation case, the crime *is* the discrimination -- the denial of service or whatever -- and not the thoughts or feelings of the discriminator, except as necessary to prove that the discrimination took place, but that seems perilously close to a distinction without a difference, so big point to you on that one. Makes me want to read up more on the issue which I think has crossed Eric's desk a few times over the years.