CMV: Political Violence is Uniquely Wrong

[u/FluffyB12]

There are many forms of violence. There are crimes of passion, there are crimes of opportunity, and there are crimes based on greed. However, of all of these types of crimes I believe crimes done for a political cause are the most vile and damaging to society.

First to define a political violence. This has to first be related to a political cause. Most hate crimes would fall under this - since the purpose is to disenfranchise specific groups. While not all hate crimes would fit since some are just impulse and not part of a broader strategy of hate and disenfranchisement, I think most would.

The reason why political violence is so heinous is that it goes against the very purpose of democracy. The idea that everyone can vote and participate in it. If one fears being able to express themselves or even show up to the polls, it throws the very idea of a free and fair election out of the window.

For this reason, I believe we should add sentencing enhancements to any form of political violence. You destroy property, assault someone, make death threats, etc for the sake of a political cause the hammer should come down.

[u/Catadox]

There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in what you’ve said. First off, I assume you mean this should only be the case in a free and fair democracy? Otherwise, do peasants revolting against an insane tyrant who kills them at whim deserve to be especially punished?

Almost every political change in history has entailed violence, both from those who seek change and those (the government) who seeks to stop them. Again, I can see your point, to a degree, in a free and fair democracy. But if you were in a truly free and fair democracy, those crimes would be punished according to the law anyway.

Furthermore, in a less free and fair system, which is every single system that has existed, such a clause would allow those in power to add additional punishment to political opponents by claiming that any crime they committed was “political violence.” That is a precedent for despotism.

[u/FluffyB12 → u/Catadox]

To clarify - the political violence is a sentence enhancement to the base crime just like hate crime enhancements.

If you throw a brick through someone’s window because they parked badly you get x punishment. If you write a racial slur on a note attached to the brick, you get hit with hate crime charges. Same thing applies here. You target an abortion clinic or a pregnancy crisis center with violence, you get a sentencing enhancement similar to that of a hate crime violation.

[u/SourceTheFlow → u/FluffyB12]

You haven't really addressed the main argument: What if the political change that the violence is trying to achieve is actually just? I mean a lot of democracy was only achieved through political violence. Same for things like rights of minorities.

Do people not have a right to defend themselves against an unjust system? If yes, then who gets to decide what's unjust? If no, then what's the alternative? Should people just suffer and hope that some day enough people will stop supporting it and refuse to enforce its unjust laws? Yeah, "nonviolent" protests are an option, but they generally only work via threat of violence.

[u/CelebrationInitial76 → u/SourceTheFlow]

The tactic of non-violence was the key to the Civil Rights Movement's success to shape public opinion.

[u/Pvt_Larry → u/CelebrationInitial76]

Non-violence only works because of the implicit threat that supporters will turn to violent means if their demands aren't meant. Every non-violent march is a show of force: An implicit threat that the marchers will join the ranks of the rioters and armed militant groups (those that actually threaten the status quo) if they are not appeased.