Joined: May 2002
|Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,18:18)|
|I just reviwed the page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me. Damn you, badger.|
Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake .... nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake. You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person.
Badger's point is much clearer. I think the question goes to intent. What is the intent of the act.
There are some lame arguments offered that the cost of the cracker/Host is an issue. That is stupid, as I have stated and then tried to expose by analogy. The cost of the cracker, or the singed lawn, or some paint is irrelevant.
Then there was "the burnt cross" is an implied threat. We then looked at laws on threat and definitions of hate crimes. A threat is to claim you will cause harm to someone. In extortion cases, the threat is all that is needed. In assault cases a threat (in California) might be all that is needed. In California, there is some leeway in the law about how a threat is perceived, and what you can do about it.
I was once involved in a case where fellow A was in a fight with fellow B. Fellow A was stabbed with a knife several times by fellow B. Fellow B was arrested. Fellow B was found innocent because Fellow A had caused the fight by threatening fellow B. Fellow A was then arrested, and charges were dropped on 5th ammendment grounds (basicly there were no witnesses not used in the trial of B, including A, and no evidence in the trial of A could be used without self incrimination (IIRC).
Does the theft of a Host for the purpose of desecration cause emotional harm to others?
I would say it does, and that the act had no other purpose than to cause emotional suffering to others. Is emotional harm a legally recognized thing? You talk to any lawyer.
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."
L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"