Hate Crimes?

[ElKevbo]

Am I the only person thoroughly disenchanted(and sometimes scared) of the concept of "hate crimes?" I am very uneasy with the thought that crimes against certain groups of people are treated differently than against other people. I am also very uneasy with the idea that the reason a crime was committed can used to lengthen the sentence. Why isn't it enough that we punish people for committing crimes?
My thoughts on this are mixed. I don't have a problem with considering motive in some cases, but sometimes we seem to go way too far in America. For example, I really did not understand why people were so upset about Matthew Shepherd's death being linked to his sexuality. Isn't it bad enough that a human being was tortured and killed?
However, I don't seem to have a problem with reducing sentences based on the situation. For example, I have sympathy with battered wives who flip out and kill their abusing husbands.
I don't know where to draw the line here. I'm not even sure if all of these thoughts are compatible. It's all very confusing for me and maybe someone out there can help me figure this all out...
Thanks!

Kevin

 

[Dually]

<< Am I the only person thoroughly disenchanted(and sometimes scared) of the concept of &quot;hate crimes?&quot; I am very uneasy with the thought that crimes against certain groups of people are treated differently than against other people. I am also very uneasy with the idea that the reason a crime was committed can used to lengthen the sentence. Why isn't it enough that we punish people for committing crimes?
My thoughts on this are mixed. I don't have a problem with considering motive in some cases, but sometimes we seem to go way too far in America. For example, I really did not understand why people were so upset about Matthew Shepherd's death being linked to his sexuality. Isn't it bad enough that a human being was tortured and killed?
However, I don't seem to have a problem with reducing sentences based on the situation. For example, I have sympathy with battered wives who flip out and kill their abusing husbands.
I don't know where to draw the line here. I'm not even sure if all of these thoughts are compatible. It's all very confusing for me and maybe someone out there can help me figure this all out...
Thanks!

Kevin >>



I am going to refrain from negative comments against you and explain why.

It is because some types of people are persecuted for who they are and hate crimes laws are to stop people from doing it.

 

[ElKevbo]

[qI am going to refrain from negative comments against you and explain why.

It is because some types of people are persecuted for who they are and hate crimes laws are to stop people from doing it.[/i] >>



But aren't there already laws against, uh, crimes? Things such as harassment, assault, and murder are already crimes, regardless of who it the victim, right?


Kevin

 

[Helpless]

>it is because some types of people are persecuted for who they are and hate crimes laws are to stop people from doing it. <


Hate crimes places a higher &quot;value&quot; on one person's life over others of a different race. For instance, you are black and I kill your child out of hate. I am punished more severely than if you, a black man, had killed my white child...Is my child worth less than your child? You get the satisfaction of knowing that I will get life in prison. I, on the other hand, will get the satisfaction of knowing that you will probably spent 20-to-life in prison, and be up for parole in 7

Murder or assault is already a crime. I hate dumb white people (I am white) and I kill all dumb white people?Is this a hate crime? Or is it only a hate crime when blacks kills white, white kills black? And is it up to the court to make those kind of decisions as to what is constituted as hate and what is not?

Al Gore thinks so; I do not.

 

[ace31216]

Reasoning is everything. It distinguishs the thin lines of punishment that is appropriate for that particular crime. For example, a young clerk bank teller pockets some money. ( I know this is impossible, but lets jus say what if, okay?) Now look at this contrasting second example. A young man with a gun, comes into the bank and threatens the employers in the back to empty out the money and hand it over to him. Though, both cases are stealing, should both punishments be the same? I don't think so. The punishments should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[ElKevbo]

I think part of my problem with &quot;hate crimes&quot; is their politicization(that is a word, right?). It really bothers me that much of the legislation involving hate crimes has not been in response to suffering human beings and trying to help them, but in trying to score points with the media and the public. It's really sad because it has made me completely jaded to the whole issue.


Kevin

 

[Capn]

ace, you're right punishments shouldn't be the same, because one is armed robbery and one is just theft, different crimes. Not sure what this has to do with hate crime though.

 

[Dually]

<< ace, you're right punishments shouldn't be the same, because one is armed robbery and one is just theft, different crimes. Not sure what this has to do with hate crime though. >>



Actually you hit it right on the nose.

It was a big deal when they made seperate armed robbery laws just like it was a few years ago when they started to destingush between using guns in crimes and other weapons or no weapons.

The idea is to stop people from committing crimes based on hate because it indangers lives, the lives of people people that are being discriminated against. The gun crime and armed robbery laws are there to stop robbers from using guns so people that work at stores and banks (came out of the 60 and 70's bank robberies) are not shot.

 

[kranky]

The concept of &quot;hate crime&quot; is a convenient way to let the &quot;thought police&quot; decide punishment. It's not enough to look at the crime - let's try to guess why someone did it, and if that reason is bad enough we can tack on a heavier punishment!

This is a very bad idea.

Trying to determine why someone did something is futile, unless they come right out and say why. Let's go back to the bank robber example - if it's a white robber and by chance the teller happens to be African-American, are we going to say that's a hate crime? Some people would, some wouldn't, and now we're back to guessing. Or what if the teller was also white, but gay? The robber would say he had no idea the teller was gay, but wait - the prosecution shows that of all the tellers in the bank, that teller was the only gay one. In fact, that was the only gay teller in the whole city! OBVIOUSLY a hate crime! Singling out the one gay teller from all the rest!

Then what are we going to do when other groups/organizations/whatever start lobbying that they should be covered under hate crimes also? We'll just keep adding to the list, I guess. If we leave someone out, that would be discriminatory!

The crime is the crime. The punishment is established for the crime. Let the actions of the criminal be the basis for deciding the punishment, not what we might think the criminal was thinking. That way the evidence speaks for itself.