[coldtea]

Is that a valid argument though? Of course things should be judged on a case by case basis, and not on dogmatic one size fits all rules.

Even courts take context into account for the same action (e.g. whether a murder was in cold blood or premeditated, whether someone stole because they were hungry or just greedy, etc).

And, yes, "there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet", as well.

[lylecubed]

But it's equally illegal to kill anybody based on race, class, political belief or religious belief.

[sincerely]

Is that true? If the murder is racially motivated and thus a hate crime, isn't the sentence longer?

[forapurpose]

It's equally illegal to perpetrate a hate crime on anyone of any race, nationality, gender, etc. It's a bit harder to do it on people who are not in a systemically-discriminated-against class, but if you find a way then it's a hate crime like any other.

[coldtea]

That's a comparatively recent law though. Hasn't been always the case (e.g. colonialists used to have "open hunting season" for native populations at certain times and it wasn't at all like killing one of their own race). And I doubt in the 30s South killing a black person was "equally illegal" as killing a white person (if not in law, surely in practical legal outcomes -- people just getting a slap on the wrist).

As for those other things (whether it's equally legally bad to kill someone regardless of "class, political belief or religious belief") all of those have been contested in actual law across societies (including western ones), even 20 and 30 years ago (and tides can always turn one way or another again).

[lylecubed]

Do you have a point? Your comment isn't applicable to the conversation we're having in this thread.

[hellbanner]

Tell that to the soldiers spreading democracy.

[tremon]

It's equally illegal for soldiers to kill non-combatants.