|
I would just like to point out that those in favor of categorizing crimes as "hate crimes" typically
come from the left. The reason is simple. If it is a "hate crime" it's victim is a community, not
an individual. The more victims the left can "protect", the better.
It's rather obvious, look at just about every political position the left takes...
The poor are victims of the rich
Minorities are victims of majorities
Women are victims of men
Workers are victims of business
The world is a victim of the US
They are always being wronged. They are always crying for equality and justice. They are always
entitled. Things are never fair.
The notion of a "hate crime" is a farce. It is a mythical idea created to inflame racial tensions,
push a glbt agenda, and in the end put control in the hands of the minority over the majority. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The term "hate crime" is redundant in itself. Would you purposefully kill someone you didn't like?
Also, why is it more of an offense when a white person kills a black man for his racial views its a
hate crime, but if a black man were to kill a white person because of his racial views its only a
homicide? Hypocracy runs rampant in our justice system. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
When allowing some one to be punished more severely you are being a uncontrolled power because all
crime is fueled by hate that's why their is crime, but also who decides when a crime is a hate crime
and how much more punishment do they deserve for doing the crime to lets say a black as opposed to
committing the crime to a white.
When looking at murder the finial out come is death so does it matter if you target them because of
their religion, race, etc.
If so then it creates a world when no body knows how to punish someone because they don't know if it
is a hate crime or not. Also when having hate crime enhancements you are defeating the purpose
because you are using hatred to punish a hate crime by giving them unessacary time. For these
reasons there is no way hate crime could be just. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Its all death anyway. If two guys kill another and they both get the death penalty ones black and
ones white and the black guy is sentenced to being stretched to death while the white gets deadly
injection. Is that fair? No. Did they both die in the end? Yes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No.
All murder is what it is: Murder.
Cannot hang a man twice: One has only ONE life......
Cannot take it twice.
Taking one life does not bring back the dead innocent either, while we are at this, is it right for
the State to be in the lynching business?.......I mean, fair is fair, correct?
If it is wrong for citizens to kill then why empower the Government to do the same thing?
Either killing is wrong or it isn't.
Be consistent in theory and practice. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It should also be noted that most victims of a hate crime are innocent by-standers. If man A kills
his wife and man B hates black people and kills one, which is a greater danger to society? Man A is
done, man B has half the population to go. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hate crimes should be punished more severely, because unlike when an assault is committed against an
individual for other reasons, a crime against someone based on their race, ethnicity, religion or
sexual orientation serves as a threat to an entire community. The danger is that if those who engage
in hate-motivated crimes are not appropriately punished, others may interpret this is an indication
that there are no serious consequences for taking part in these activities.
On the other hand, I would also argue that the US criminal justice system is very deeply flawed, in
that it has been created in such a way as to favour the prosecution from the start, leaving
defendants at a distinct disadvantage. This has consequences for all those trying to defend
themselves against any allegation, including hate-related crimes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think killing someone because they are a member of a group you despise is indeed more evil than
killing someone for most other reasons. So I think it's reasonable that this kind of offence
attracts a higher sentence. However, I don't see that there has to be any legislative basis for
this. Surely it is already within a judge's discretion to impose a harsher sentence for any crime
depending on his assessment of the circumstances surrounding it? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
17 Feb 2008 02:30
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
