"Hate Crime", and it's terrible implications

Yet you cannot prove that 'hate' was present at any time. You may be able to demonstrate a history of antipathy towards a certain group .. but that should have no bearing on the act under prosecution. How does it change anything? And what if the violent crime was actually precipitated by some other transient emotion or 'reason'? It's all just nebulous BS. When the perp is known to have commited a random crime (and so the establishment of a motive to determine guilt isn't necessary), you can never really know why.

 

But it doesn't. That's my point.

Some people will say it is, but it's not. And some people will say it is, even though they know it's not, because they are just looking for an excuse to punish "racism".

 

but it does, that is what makes it a hate crime, I would make a hate crime a mandatory 25 years vs 5

 

No, it doesn't. That's the point. You don't seem able to understand that.

It's EXACTLY because of people like you that I don't trust any jury to correctly apply these type of laws. So that just makes it simply bad law.

 

it does. That's the point. You don't seem able to understand that.

I would not trust you on a jury either... so guess we're even

 

hate crimes is not abut hate per se, it's about committing a crime against a person because of ones dislike of the race, such as trying to scare off black people from moving into a white neighborhood

burning a cross in someone's yard is an example of a hate crime - it's not only sending a message to the victim, but the entire race

 

a hate crime doesn't make much difference on a murder charge, but when dealing with vandalism, assault, ect... it can make the punishment fit the crime

 

I will agree with you, usually that is the case, but not necessarily. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes a murder is not as a bad as a regular murder.

I think this was definitely the case with the Arbery killing and the George Floyd killings, for example.

In some cases a person who commits murder might only get a 15 or 20 year sentence, sometimes even less. Sometimes the judge will impose a lower sentence simply because there might be a chance the person could be innocent.

So this is not always correct.

Or it can make the punishment not fit the crime, if the "hate crime" charge is applied in a bad way, which it often is.
For example, maybe the graffiti happened to be the N-word. That should not be adequate evidence that it was a hate crime, but stupid people will be likely to think that is adequate evidence. If someone commits an assault, I don't believe that just because they happened to use a racial name during that assault that they should get more punishment.

 

why do you think the Arbery and George Floyd killings were not as bad?