Given that we value political speech, let whether a crime was committed as a speech act affect sentencing; that is, terrorism is punished less than the same crime purely for personal gain.
This is a radical departure from current practice of the state pursuing greater penalties for terrorism. However, it is consistent with American ideals as well as the practice at the small scale of things like free speech being a valid defense against "creating a public disturbance".
Curiously, the prosecution will now try to prove it was not terrorism while the defense tries to prove it was. If many people are getting reduced sentences for terrorism, we take it as a sign of something more deeply wrong with society, that the speakers are finding the available legal means of speech inadequate.
An even more radical idea: Outright winning the war on terrorism by making it protected free speech.
No comments :
Post a Comment