Those for and against hate crime laws debate each other in the shadow of John Stuart Mill. Both accept the Millian premise that the state is justified in coercing an individual only to prevent harm to others and not to condemn that individual for holding objectionable beliefs, values, or preferences.1 They purport to disagree only about what that principle the guiding tenet of modem liberalism entails. Because hate crime laws distinguish between otherwise identical assaults based solely on offenders' motives, the opponents of those laws see them as singling out hate criminals for additional punishment solely because of their noxious ideologies. The proponents of hate crime laws, in contrast, disclaim any interest in punishing offenders for their values and insist that such laws are warranted strictly by the greater harms that hate crimes inflict, both on their victims and on third parties. At that point, the debate usually turns empirical. Is the "greater harm"
AI-powered Research feed
Round-ups are the summaries of handpicked papers around trending topics published every week. These would enable you to scan through a collection of papers and decide if the paper is relevant to you before actually investing time into reading it.
Climate change Research Articles published between Jun 20, 2022 to Jun 26, 2022
Jun 27, 2022
Articles Included: 2
One eighth of the bird species in the world is considered globally threatened; the avifauna of Iraq comprises 409 species and is considered as the maj...Read More