Not necessarily, but it is an element in that book. Communism made us aware of that as they burned books and outlawed religions.

What about it makes no sense to you? Or is the term "slippery slope" what is most annoying? Do you doubt the validity of the concept, or are you just annoyed?

Not as a matter of legislated policy. There is your slippery slope. First judges factored a lack of remorse into their sentencing decisions. Then there came a law...

Not really, some crimes have a higher level of severity than others. For example me hitting someone is less severe than me committing murder. That is objective. Whether race is a motivation for either is subjective. It is a thought, not an action.

__________________
lambaste me not

It makes sense to me, but mostly i'm just annoyed. Personally, I have very little regard for ethical principles, i always like to take things on an individual basis, deciding what is best for society. To me, ethical principles are simply guide posts that make the game easier. ( Do not misunderstand: This is not to say that you should break laws, you should follow them to the letter, what i mean is that lawmakers should have some flexibility when making laws ).

A slippery slope ususally starts when an ethical principle is broken ever so slightly, but if you evaluate the situation in question individually, you get a different result.

Maybe your right though, i suppose the "guideposts" as i call them are probably still needed.

True, but the judge is still thought policing, so its not like we havn't already broken that rule.

Edit: wait a second... are you opposed to giving judges/juries authority to work with in a sentencing range based on remorselessness and other factors?

I worded this very badly, and i can very much understand how you would misinterpret what i said. In fact i think i'm going to go back and edit it if there is still time...

what i meant to say is that for each individual crime, there is a range of sentences that are allowed... for example, one type of murder gets 25 years in prison to life.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

Exactly. The slope....she is slippery

I see what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying. You are talking about the difference between first degree murder and second degree. Murder is murder right? If someone is dea they are dead.

Well to clarify that a bit more, you can still see the objective difference between killing 80 people with a chainsaw versus 1. 80 people are dead in the first case which is more severe. So there still is some difference within that crime.

But let's just compare the "degrees" killing of one person with a gun. In both cases the severity is the same; one person is dead. But in the first degree case there is pre-meditation, which happens in the mind. And in the second degree, the passion of the moment which also happens in the mind. So what the person was thinking is the reason for their extended sentence or whether or not they are put to death. So you are right. It is a form of thought policing. Ergo your slippery slope. It is really a matter of what is more acceptable. Is it acceptable for me personally to distinguish between first and second degree murder? Yes. But there is a line to cross, and I think hate crime crosses that line, because basically makes racism illegal. This seems like a good cause, but think for a second. How far away are we from making religious thoughts applicable to crime sentencing. Not far. It is arbitrary. It is a matter of how much you are willing to tolerate. I can tolerate someone being a sociopath or a psychopath as reason enough to extend their sentence, but being a racist? That goes too far for my tastes.

__________________
lambaste me not

And i agree with you, but for a different reason. Very interesting conversations though.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984