Re: vision2020-digest Digest V98 #190

[Robert Hoffmann <escape@alt-escape.com>]

At 02:48 PM 10/17/98 EDT, you wrote:
>>The amount of damage caused to a lawn would probably be
>>insufficient to consitute "arson" in any state.

>An annotated Code may prove me wrong, but assuming a burning cross on
>someone's lawn damaged the lawn because it was on fire, it appears the person
>could be charged with 3rd degree arson.  Then turn a jury loose on them.
>
>No need to make this a hate crime.
>
>E. O'Daniel

Technically, you might have a point.  However, prosecutors routinely
decline to pursue prosecutions that might be considered "frivolous."  If a
cross-burner could only be charged with arson, the amount of "arson" damage
could be considered frivolous.  Furthermore, part of our judicial system is
to assign penalties that are in line with the crime.  If the crime is
burning $5.00 worth of sod, any major penalty would be unlikely.  Any major
penalty would certainly be overturned on appeal (even thought the
conviction could stand).  If a cross-burning could be prosecuted as a hate
crime, the judicial system can come down with much greater severity.


Robert Hoffmann                      115 N. Jackson St., Suite D
Alt-Escape Adventures                Moscow, ID  83843  USA
http://www.alt-escape.com            Phone: (208) 883-0642
	             Fax:   (208) 883-8545