Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
I'll accept a 'hate crime' when they show me a corresponding 'kindness crime'
The racial aspect or 'hate' aspect can go to show motive, etc... but it does not change the crime
Murder is murder, assault is assault, robbery is robbery, rape is rape
American Thinker?
Youve got to be kidding.
Otherwise, Leo Pusateri succeeds in only exhibiting his own ignorance of the law, and the ignorance of conservatives who agree with him.
Laws authorizing enhanced sentencing with regard to crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, etc, are Constitutional and do not constitute a thought crime, nor do they violate the right to free expression:
The First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).