Again... that's not "proof". The perp could easily be lying.
I mean if a guy can decide to murder someone, are we gonna take anything he says at face value?

As I said before... the courts will accept this as proof, but it really isn't "proof".

This post was edited by Ghot on Dec 9 2022 08:10pm

So what happens in all the other cases where the killer denies being racist?

Only if you want to disregard all confessions, all the time.

Then there would need to be other corroborating evidence to establish hate crime criteria, and in the absence of any, it would not be deemed a hate crime.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Dec 9 2022 08:13pm

Fuck Ghot you don't post as often now but when you do it's absolute gold.

"I fucking hate them ni66ers"

Ghot "well we can't just assume he's a racist"

This post was edited by SBD on Dec 9 2022 08:14pm

And what kind of evidence will be admissible? Remember, it is difficult to establish intent. And I can honestly tell you most caught killers will have enough awareness to know that if he admits to being a racist, he will go to jail for much longer, so they will deny it. If you just rely on their own admission, you won't go anywhere.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 9 2022 08:21pm

Ok... I'm sure you type fast. But I want you to read this and actually think about it, before responding.

Accusing someone of a hate crime before absolute proof... IS a hate crime.

I already told you: Their own admission, written statements, and to a lesser extent, corroborating witness/collateral evidence. I also provided a clear example.

Lay it on me, man. How is that a hate crime?

By corroborating witness, do you mean someone close to the killer and who can vouch that they are racist? I mean even if this is true, you still cant definitively prove that the particular crime they committed was racially motivated.