Imagine a man walks into a room, says nothing and kills another man. Now, imagine he does it because the victim is Asian and the killer hates Asians. Now imagine, that isn't so, and he just didn't like the victim. The two are indistinguishable except for the killer's mindset. Should one be published moreso than the other, and if so why?
If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, you already don’t think highly of them to begin with. Hate Crime is just another concept invented to stoke racism.
murder isn't the only crime that can be a hate crime...Imagine an elderly woman walking down the street who is attacked and beaten badly by a stranger because of her genetics...
Think on it this way. Imagine an elderly woman walking down the street who is attacked and badly beaten by a stranger... for no reason. Every personal crime is a hate crime, I don't think people beat on each other out of love. No one's life is worth more than anyone else's, regardless of what people claim is the reason for the crime.
Second different case (which I think may elicit different answers): A man gets a can of spray paint and paints on the wall of an overpass "Jon Loves Judy". Another man gets a can of spray paint and paints on the wall of an overpass "I hate Jews". Should the second get a harsher penalty than the first? If so, Why? Or aside from the damage to property side of things, is the difference in message covered under freedom of speech? Hate Speech?
Some psycho's kill people at random never seeing them before executing them, which is true of those committing hate crimes who kill someone Just Because they are Asian or black etc.
The difference is the intent behind the attack. Every American citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is compromised when one is targeted solely because of their race/ethnicity, religion, sexual preference or transgenderism.
Is it a crime to hate Jews? Is it a crime to spray paint overpasses? Will a harsher punishment convince the tagger to stop hating Jews? What if the tagger wrote “I hate Judy” or “I hate crackers” or “I hate Christians”?
It's not a crime to hate anybody. It's a crime to cause harm to the hated person. The intent behind the attack determines whether it is a hate crime or not. Yes. Defacing public property is a crime in most, if not all, jurisdictions. Generally, it has the opposite effect. The intent behind the attack determines whether it is a hate crime or not.[/QUOTE]
Then we would have to conclude both taggers should receive the same penalty. I think this is one of the best reasons not to dabble in treating the same acts differently because of different motives. It’s counterproductive. [/QUOTE] So would a mugger who kills a dude that won’t hand over his wallet while muttering “I hate people that don’t give me their wallet” deserve a harsher penalty than a mugger who kills a guy that won’t hand over his wallet without saying anything? Or perhaps the mugger is a real nut and mutters “I love when people don’t hand over their wallet” while whacking his victim. My point is “hate” is a pretty subjective term to base tiered justice upon.
Well, yes and no. Government can't legislate hate any more than it can legislate love (which is why marriage is a business contract). The tiers of grievance is harsher for hate crimes than crimes not based on hate. To counteract this, many bigots just target those they hate in more subtle ways. Personally, I believe that people arrested for hate crimes should have to do community service in the area where their targeted hate is aimed. Maybe understanding other cultures/races/religions/different sexual interest/transgenderism would help provide them a bit more perspective. No, it's not a guaranteed method for tempering the hatred but it does provide an opportunity to grow if one so choices.
I don’t believe government should be involved in marriage or what people think. If we could point to marriage and say “look at how much better of people are because government meddled in marriage” or if we could say “wow, government really put the kabosh on hate by giving that guy a longer sentence” I would rethink that position. Yep. If our goal is less hate, we failed. If the goal is less violence by bigots, where is the empirical evidence harsher sentences have a causal relationship with decreased hate crime? It’s better than punishing them more. I certainly agree with that.
I've always found it strange that people who are against gay people having equal marriage rights claim "it destroys the sanctity of marriage." That's ridiculous with the skyrocketing number of extra-martial affairs, divorces and single parent households. I can't think of anything the government has done well. I'll let you know should that change in the future (don't hold your breath . The justice system is for-profit so they have no incentive in rehabilitating anyone or eradicating hatred or anything else. It's just like doctors have no incentive to help their patients get well. They need repeat customers.
In a sane world, same sex marriage advocates would have formed an alliance with evangelical Christians to separate the institution of marriage completely from government influence. It’s unfathomable to me that same sex couples wished to be subjected to an outside authority. It’s unfathomable to me Christians wish to be subjected to government authority in relation to marriage when they believe marriage was instituted by a higher authority—God. I don’t see what either demographic gains in sanctity or commitment by involving a third party that only wishes to benefit itself by being involved. Good point about hetero marriage not having much sanctity anyway. LOL. Understood. Isn’t that the truth!
Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is no more or less violated when someone kills you for the fun of it than when someone kills you because they hate your eye colour.
Charging someone with a hate crime means the judicial system is reading minds. The law is a stupid concept to make some people feel good. What next, make a law that says if you shoot some once it's murder 101 but if you shoot them twice it's murder 102.
Should be treated the same as the same offense. Vandalizing. Really....when you see hateful messages like KKK and I HATE JEWs....in this day and age such things can easily be done as hoaxes for attention.
Hate crime deals with motive not just actions. There are other laws that impose stricter punishment for motive because many people find the motive abhorrent such as child sex laws. I don't see anyone here arguing that all pornography is equal and there should be no added punishment for kiddie porn.
Somebody could say that's because kiddie porn means kids used in making of the porn. Kiddie hentai would be more on your point.
