On 06/28/09 12:41, Warp wrote:
>> I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
>> that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
>> you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
>> defendant.
>
>    IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
> be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved parties.
> People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes against who.

	I was about to say something similar.

	But to be honest, I don't want to say it definitively. I'd like to say 
this (Warp's approach) should be the default, but there should be room 
to argue in front of the judge for it *not* to be on a case by case 
basis (i.e. if the particular case has some elements where one really 
needs to know).

	But really, there are probably lots of factors I have not considered. 
(Armchair arguments...)

>    Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
> statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
> which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.

	That too. Come to think of it, in many cases, trying to adhere to this 
would be a mess. At times, I'd rather it be openly stated rather than 
have juries "figure" it out based on testimony.

-- 
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a 
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message