The goal is not to keep people from hating. The goal is to make them certain that if they act on that hatred in ways that harm other people, they are going to be punished for it, the severity of the punishment increasing with the severity of the harm. If this person had been absolutely certain that within an hour of beheading this poor woman, he would have been seized and beheaded himself, that knowledge would probably have sobered him.
What he knew instead was that there was some chance he might get away; that there was some chance no one there would have a gun, or if they did, could shoot him before he got away; that even if he were captured, he might not be convicted; that even if he were, he might not be sentenced to death; and that even if that did happen, he wouldn't be executed for another fifteen years or so.
The fact this man happened to get shot hardly proves he was crazy. He may very well have figured it was unlikely anyone there had a gun, or that the police would show up with guns before he could get away. There have been many cases where people have committed brutal murders in broad daylight and never been shot. We saw a similar kind of attack in London a month ago, and that murderer was not shot. Neither were the two African Muslims who almost decapitated a British soldier, Lee Rigby.
People who are so fanatic they are willing to kill themselves to kill other people can never be deterred. The only way to protect against them is to kill them before they can act. But they are a small minority. No one could have been more fanatic than the Japanese during World War II. Out of the garrison of 20,000-plus men on Iwo Jima, for example, only about one per cent survived to surrender. And suicide was a given in kamikaze attacks. But it's interesting to note that even there, there was only a surge of volunteer kamikaze pilots for a while. In the later stages, it got more and more necessary to dragoon people into that duty.
How about some specifics? Under what country's laws, and when, was theft a capital crime for which the penalty was usually carried out? British law used to make all sorts of crimes punishable by death, but for all but the most serious crimes, the people convicted were seldom executed.
To return to the topic of this thread, do you think the state of New York has authority to prohibit these ads? In this country, should government be able to ban political speech in public forums whenever it doesn't like what's being said? If what someone says makes members of a group it's politically correct to consider victimized feel all icky, should the government make the mean, insensitive person stop hurting the members of the victim group by saying such yucky things?
I think MTA cooked up a phony "clear and present danger" rationale after it lost the first challenge by the group that wants to place these ads. I don't think anything about the ads even comes close to taking them outside the realm of First Amendment protected speech. Leftists just want to prevent people from telling the truth about the Jew-hating Islamist SOB's whose feet they're always trying to kiss. Not surprising, since many of them make clear by constantly running America down that they don't like it much better than the Islamists do.
Last edited by matchlight; 09-28-14 at 06:56 PM.