"Focus On The Crime, Not The Victim"
Hate crimes are abominable, that goes with out saying. But in America's court system, is it fair to punish some more than others for the same crime? Should motive really be given such high regard? This topic is exactly what Tish Durkin discusses in her article, "Focus On The Crime, Not The Victim" where she takes a proactively anti-hate-crime-laws stance, stating that it is against our national policy of equality to "codify the idea that certain kinds of human life have greater value than other kinds." She makes a very compelling argument based on figmental, though plausible arguments, however, her conversational diction and palpably disapproving tone discredit the piece's reasoning with its obvious bias. That being said, for an opinion article, I feel her audience will be placated with listening to her untempered opinion.
Durkin reveals her opinion on hate crime legislation from the opening paragraph- mentioning the good of reopening conversation on what she terms "hate-crimes fever," implying, somewhat rightfully, that hate crime legislation was born from a sort of social revolution craze. However, even by implying that it is a fad, she puts in the same league of respectability as other fads- Beiber Fever, Iphones, and the like. I must admit that this is impertinent if a writer is going to disagree with the something that seems so inheritantly good. If one is going to harshly critique a law that protects minorities, perhaps it is wise to use words like "overkill," and "absurd," however out of place in an educated argument they may be. That being said, I think this phrase sums up very well why I think she went a little too far in her casual manor of speaking: "Even apart from the warped morality of such a notion, how loopy is the logic?" This level of apparent disregard for opposing stances, in my opinion, would estrange an audience.
What I can't deny, however, is my aforementioned observation that her examples are compelling and I think that her specific audience, namely those who are reading opinion articles, might not be as affronted by her blunt opinion. She gives numerous, and in fact nearly a third of the entire article is made up of, hypothetical situations that are almost unarguable. For example, she poses the question "Does a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a man deserve less punishment than a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a woman?" One must say, 'well, of course not.' But I think that specific examples would have made her examples so much more compelling. She briefly mentions "a lacrosse player" that was recently convicted of a crime, and I suppose this might be common knowledge to those more educated, but I don't put as much stock in that as I would if she had given me a real, identifiable name. And while I still think that her conversational tone might be what opinion article readers are looking for, I stand by my stance that her bias is too much to make her article of any actual use for change in a matter I can tell she feels very strongly about. To provide an example of an opinion article, that has an obvious opinion, can still be professional and have sound, useful data, I give you a similar article: "Justice, Not Vengeance, for Hate Crimes." This argument is compelling, both in its voice, and in its use of quantifiable data, and I think is much more practical reading.
Durkin reveals her opinion on hate crime legislation from the opening paragraph- mentioning the good of reopening conversation on what she terms "hate-crimes fever," implying, somewhat rightfully, that hate crime legislation was born from a sort of social revolution craze. However, even by implying that it is a fad, she puts in the same league of respectability as other fads- Beiber Fever, Iphones, and the like. I must admit that this is impertinent if a writer is going to disagree with the something that seems so inheritantly good. If one is going to harshly critique a law that protects minorities, perhaps it is wise to use words like "overkill," and "absurd," however out of place in an educated argument they may be. That being said, I think this phrase sums up very well why I think she went a little too far in her casual manor of speaking: "Even apart from the warped morality of such a notion, how loopy is the logic?" This level of apparent disregard for opposing stances, in my opinion, would estrange an audience.
What I can't deny, however, is my aforementioned observation that her examples are compelling and I think that her specific audience, namely those who are reading opinion articles, might not be as affronted by her blunt opinion. She gives numerous, and in fact nearly a third of the entire article is made up of, hypothetical situations that are almost unarguable. For example, she poses the question "Does a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a man deserve less punishment than a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a woman?" One must say, 'well, of course not.' But I think that specific examples would have made her examples so much more compelling. She briefly mentions "a lacrosse player" that was recently convicted of a crime, and I suppose this might be common knowledge to those more educated, but I don't put as much stock in that as I would if she had given me a real, identifiable name. And while I still think that her conversational tone might be what opinion article readers are looking for, I stand by my stance that her bias is too much to make her article of any actual use for change in a matter I can tell she feels very strongly about. To provide an example of an opinion article, that has an obvious opinion, can still be professional and have sound, useful data, I give you a similar article: "Justice, Not Vengeance, for Hate Crimes." This argument is compelling, both in its voice, and in its use of quantifiable data, and I think is much more practical reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment