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.

I don't know, I think I'm for it...on one hand, yeah somebody may be wrongly branded, but that happens already with people and the sex offender list and once they're on they never get off it, so...but on the other hand, if you can prove that somebody who viciously assaulted a woman, it was not a one time thing, he would like to do it to all women, that's all the more reason why he should not get a lighter sentence.

My personal opinion is that if society weren't so bent on bigotry, hate crime legislation would be....like South Park once said....a "savage hypocrisy." Since society IS bigoted however, punishing people whose crimes were demographic targeted more severely shows that the system "cares" about the citizens that fits the "type" targeted.

I'm in the middle. I realize "hate crimes" do exist but I also agree that all crimes are based on some amount of hatred. If you kill somebody, the penalty shouldn't be greater cause the victim was black or gay or whatever. Killing is killing and crime is crime. Intolerance isn't a motive that should warrant special punishment that vindictive kills do not have.

Seem redundant to me. If somebody hate somebody else enuff to kill 'em for any reason thats enuff.

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.

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.

How so? "Hate crime" policies only seem to fuel hatred even more. Besides, the point is that acts of hate ARE unacceptable, regardless of whether or not the victim was attacked because they were a specific color or whatnot. If you attack somebody, it's a hate crime. If you beat somebody to death or hang them, it's a hate crime plain and simple. Calling only certain violent crimes hateful makes no sense.

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.

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.

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.

I 100% agree with Chris. I read the OP, and was reading the replies, all with the thoughts about a recent murder in my city. Two Hmong guys killed a white guy. There was a lot to do about it all. I never for one second thought of it as a hate crime, I thought it was a murder. No more no less. I think all three men were into the drug world and it was about that. And I hate all the local inferences that it was a hate crime. It wasn't.

I agree to, Chris. I think that's where the danger is, because it's too easy to call something a hate crime when it's just random act of violence that has nothing to do with a person's ethnicity gender, whatever. Sometimes a crime is just that - a crime that and it could have happened to anyone and that person just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

^^^^A crime that could happen to anyone? I thought that was the point behind hate crime legislation.

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.

Aren't serial killers the same thing? If somebody is targeting a specific demographic, everyone who meets that demographic in his region is living in fear, yet I don't see them charging him with a hate crime. The fact is, hate crime legislation really is only something giving false mental satisfaction to people. Hate is hate and crime is crime and if somebody commits crimes, it's hateful. Punishing certain people less(and let's be real, that's what they are doing) solely because their killing wasn't racially motivated is absurd. Besides, I honestly don't see hate crime laws out to protect non-minorities from hate crimes, which go on plenty even if people don't wanna admit it.

And also, Chris, your analogy has one problem. If somebody robs a black person to take his money, it might still be considered a hate crime. The problem with hate crime legislation is that it often isn't dealing with skinheads. If it wasn't so overused to refer to any crime committed against somebody in a designated minority for any reason, people wouldn't have a problem with it.

So at the end of the day, hate is hate. If you consider the person a terrorist, arrest him as a terrorist. But this hate crime legislation just seems to be a bunch of excuses that don't really solve anything.

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.

Quite frankly you don't see it, because you are trying to be contrary. You very much enjoy taking the "negative" (as opposed to the affirmative) in these types of threads.

Quote :

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.

No, no, no and no. Absolutely untrue! That is a tired, water down generalization that opponents of Hate Crime legislation love to spout to downplay the severity of the incidents and need for this particular protection. If a white man attacks a black man in a bar, it must be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that his intent was racially motivated (a past history of harassing blacks or other minorities...eyewitnesses to the scene corroborating if the attacker used racist language or slurs during the altercation...compelling statement from the victim...etc.)before he can be charged with a hate crime. Since people who commit hate crimes tend to have difficulty concealing their aversion to the group their victims are part of, the intent tends to become obvious.

If none of this can be verified or proven, then he most likely won't be charged with a hate crime.

Quote :

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.

If you honestly can't see the difference between someone attacking another person because of a rancorous moment shared between the two and someone looking to attack ANY RANDOM INDIVIDUAL who happens to fit a certain description, then you are blind! The difference between a "hate crime" and a general act of violence should be obvious to any rational minded person. Hate crimes target specific communities of people and are meant to create and spread fear, unease and panic amongst them - via the assault of an unlucky, arbitrary victim. Their intent is to intimidate and to send an oppressive social message that no one of that description is safe with them around.

Anyone else?

If it can be proved that someone harmed someone else because of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., I don't have any problem with them facing extra prison time.

Should absolutely be in place. People who commit hate crimes are a menace to the entire community that the unfortunate victim belongs to. Their next target can be on ANYBODY.

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.

I've recently changed my opinion on this issue. I once thought hate crime legislature was "good", but upon evaluating the arguments against it, I don't agree with it anymore. I think crimes should still be "labeled" hate-crimes (to establish motive and intent only) when proven to be so, but I don't think the punishment (sentence) for the crimes should be any different. A violent crime is still a violent crime (whether prove to be a hate crime or not) and as long as the intent and outcome was the same, the punishment should be equally harsh.