Hate Crimes

stonestatic wrote:Policies opposing hate crimes have the potential to reshape negative societal attitudes, breaking down stereotypes and building understanding. When a government or society finally commits to a position that says acts of hate are unacceptable, people holding these negative beliefs are urged to reconsider their values.

RiteDiva wrote:Most hate crimes aren't personal. They are random acts of violence inflicted on any random person who fits a certain description. It's meant to send terror through the community of people who fit that overall description, as to say that "we're gunning for your kind...you could be next." This is why we have hate crime legislation and why it's important to keep.

RiteDiva wrote:Most hate crimes aren't personal. They are random acts of violence inflicted on any random person who fits a certain description. It's meant to send terror through the community of people who fit that overall description, as to say that "we're gunning for your kind...you could be next." This is why we have hate crime legislation and why it's important to keep.

Chris wrote:There absolutely should be legislation in place to punish those more severely who hurt, menace or kills certain types of people, solely because of what they inherently are.

If some someone picks up a black person on the side of the road and kills him after taking his money, that's a crime. If a nazi-skinhead is driving around hunting "negroes" for a good old fashioned lynching, that's a hate crime; an entire group of people would be left living in fear that they, or a loved one, could be next. That's terrorism.

A hate crime does not only affect the direct victim, it affects (and terrorizes) an entire group of people. It makes everyone within it feel unsafe for simply being. The difference between "regular crime" and "hate crime" is, again, terrorism.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

And there are plenty of message kills that are done for different reasons as well meant to scare the community. Again, I don't see a purpose to hate crime legislation. If you commit a crime, it is a hate crime.

I also think that hate crime legislation often ends up making simple assault charges into hate crimes. If a white guy hits a white guy in a bar, it's assault. If he hits a black guy for the same reason, it's a hate crime? Sounds more like sloppy law to me.

Sorry, but hate crime legislation seems to contradict itself. Crime is a hateful thing. If you commit a crime, you should be punished. But punishing somebody more because their crimes were motivated by race instead of some other factor, there's really no good reason for it. Hate crime legislation just seems to be to make people feel better. In premise, it might be well intentioned but it's honestly ridiculous and redundant. If you commit a crime, you should be punished. ALL violent crimes are hate crimes and it's time we started waking up and realizing that.

Marc™ wrote:Do you agree with the premise of hate crime legislation?

Pro argument:
Crimes motivated by hatred against a racial, ethnic, religious, or other group are deserving of more punishment than acts of violence not motivated by such hatred. Added punishment for these crimes has the potential to deter these acts. While some hate crimes may be isolated incidents, many are perpetuated by groups of people (sometimes organizations) whose goal is intimidation. Stronger penalties would destabilize such movements.

Con argument:
All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being. To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by hate. Such a distinction is also very hard to assess in a trial; there is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group.