Hate crime laws

[Dark Capitalist]

For, or against?

[187]

I believe blind hate and racism should be discouraged, and myths fabricated by hate groups should be brought to light, and publicly debunked. Hate crime laws should be in place only to prevent people from acting out in violence against others, or impeding on anyone elses rights. Otherwise, I believe people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how absurd they may be.

So I guess I'm for.

[synthesis]

I'm pro-hate crime legislation. It serves two purposes: that of discouraging those harboring racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic tendencies from acting upon them, and that of seperating those deluded enough to actually act on racist tendencies from any semblance of decent society.

[(*]

Anyone who would commit a crime based on a persons race, religion, nationality, or sexuality needs some serious therapy. That should be included in the courts' sentence.

I'm not sure exactly how hate crimes are prosecuted or what the punishments are.

[sledovatel]

i'm against them. if you murder someone, it doesn't matter if it was for racist reasons or for anything else. murder is murder. there doesn't need to be new laws or classifications.
-s

[Invader Zim]

I have noticed that those who commit hate crimes are generally brought up in area's of little education, and poor backgrounds, where people whom are different often compete for jobs and other unskilled labour. These differences combined with the lack of education and ignorance seems to breed hatred and racists. Therefore I suggest that in a socialist society where such conditions would not exist there would be very few such crimes anyway. However I am in agreement with the above from 187, DyerMaker and (*!. Those who do commit these crimes deserve a proverbial slap and maybe a period of therapy and re-education.

[b]i'm against them. if you murder someone, it doesn't matter if it was for racist reasons or for anything else. murder is murder. there doesn't need to be new laws or classifications./b]

You raise an interesting point, if a person commits an already existing crime such as murder or arson on racial grounds should the system be altered. I say not, they should serve there time or what ever, though perhaps while doing so they should have sessions with a phychitrist (ignore the spelling).

[187]

Murder isn't just murder. People murder for reasons, and if we understand those reasons, we have a better chance of stoping murders from occuring. Simply locking everyone away who kills without asking questions brings us no closer to ending it.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:45 AM
i'm against them. if you murder someone, it doesn't matter if it was for racist reasons or for anything else. murder is murder. there doesn't need to be new laws or classifications.
But there are already different catagories for different types of murder, and different types of killing. Hate crimes also go a long way beyond merely murder.


I think the question is quite vague, and I don't know what the laws are in the US.

I think anyone with any degree of sense, however, will acknowledge that all the relevant circumstances of any crime should be taken into account when the sentence is dealth out.

If an individual beats the crap out of another person as a result of a prejudice the attacker holds, their attempts at rehabiltation must address that fact. Otherwise, what's the point?


If someone does something for reasons of prejudice, they should be dealth with as someone who did something for reasons of prejudice. It's not complicated.

[Hampton]

If an individual beats the crap out of another person as a result of a prejudice the attacker holds, their attempts at rehabiltation must address that fact. Otherwise, what's the point?

You just found the loophole of the American prison system. It fails to teach rehabiltation. If you go in for growing some pot in your backyard they're not going to give you some classs about the dangers of the stuff, your rehabiltation will come when you drop the soap and when someone buys you for a carton of cigarettes.

I'm for the laws by the way.

[Elect Marx]

Hate crimes are certian types of crime, like any other type of act they should be treated in different ways in relation to the crime in order to acheive the best solution. So yes, I am for specific laws for hate crimes, depending on the law and it's application.

[sliverchrist]

Hate laws are important to have for the already mentioned reasons of intent. The intent certainly matters, especially if a crime is pre-meditated. I do see how murder is murder and for the most part, something that a society should live without.

Totally agree with Hampton on the prison system, we need to fix our criminals, or put them to good use. There is no point in saturating them with (especially minor offenders, in three strike states) more serious cases of crime, so they came out of prison being more capable and more prone to commit a crime.

[Dark Capitalist]

To me, a 'hate crime' is nothing more but another term for thoughtcrime.

[sliverchrist]

Thats true.

But because the crime was committed out of hate, does mean it has had any more thought put into then any other crime.

[dancingoutlaw]

To me, a 'hate crime' is nothing more but another term for thoughtcrime.

I think that there is a better way to put this. I will get one thing straight. I am not rascist or sexist and I am for Gay rights(in the sense that everyone is treated under the law as equal) but I am not for "hate crimes." The reason for this is that the burden of proof of this hate crime should rely upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Once a "hate crime" is invoked the burden of proof is shifted away from the State to the Defendent to prove a lack of hate in something like a murder or rape. How can there be murder or rape without a certain sense of hate? While the defendent was beating the man to death I have a witness that will swear he was yelling " I love you, you beautiful black gay bastard." your honor. How does one reasonably differentiate between a "normal" murder and a "hate murder". Perhaps the Prosocuton could claim that that the murder was premeditated because of the defendents former record of violence with gays and minorities. This would be fine but previous evidence not pertaining to the case is very hard to admit unless it establishes a clear connection to the case at hand. Also how can we be sure that the "hate crime" law would be used evenly and fairly? Surely there are minorities who would murder gays because of their demented world view. Would the law apply to one murderer and not the other is the problem. Not applying these laws equally would be as much of a travesty as the death penalty laws not being applied equally.