Hate Crimes

Post Reply New Topic

Here is an interesting question. A hate crime is generally viewed as a crime that has undertones of racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice. However, the notion is controversial. Should one really be punished more heavily? What reasons can one give to justify that this is so?

The choice of options should be (a) Yes. Hate crime statutes are a needed thing. Or (b) hate crimes shouldnt exist as a category, you should just punish the perpetrators for whatever the common crime was that they committed in the name of their alleged hatred.

Not sure what my opinions is. Sometimes it seems like "hate crime" is a needed category, but some suggest that creating that category is too close to thought control by the government. And maybe they have a point.

On one hand, you can't legislate away prejudice.
On the other hand, you can't allow targeting people for abuse.

IMHO crimes motivated by hate need extra punishment, as they are just too destructive to public peace, order and social trust.

I think that hate crimes should have a stricter penalty. Hate crimes should not be allowed.

I say case by case basis.

Vandalism to destroy property is not as bad as vandalism meant to terrify an entire group.

Even is the case of of swastikas painted on synagogues which is always worse the vandalism just to break things there could be different motivations. This could be a kind of troll knowing your handiwork will bring attention or it could be because you hate Jews.

And what if a person who hacks a Jewish schools website with Nazi imagery was a disaffected student of the school?

I have pragmatic approach to the law in general.
That said, I believe the problem of inter-group violence is a more urgent problem than other forms of violence - we really need to learn on experiences of the 20th century. Organised violence with modern technology can do too much harm to everyone.

They should be punished more heavily, especially if they are violence crimes. If someone beats up another person because of a personal reason, they are less likely to attack some other person as well than if the reason was race, gender, religion etc. Of course, there'd be a problem with how to prove that it was really a hate crime and not personal against that specific person of a certain group.

The definition of a hate crime is so vague these days it's hard to gauge a proprtuonal punishment for them.

I always felt that the act needs more punishment then the motive behind the act. For example, of a person decides to commit murder out of say spousal jealousy, to me that it's just as bad as a person committing murder, in a robbery for example. The act is what counts for punishment, not the motive behind it. But that's just me.

There was a young boy they found recently the mother posted a petition, the cops are trying to write it off as a an "accident" this young boy was murdered very similarity to Emmett Till. I've seen the photos the mother posted, that should definitely be a harsher punishment for something which is so obviously a hate rime, They need harsher punishment's so maybe they'll think twice before doing it. Hate crimes is singling a persons out specially for the race religion etc, while regular everyday crimes are usually random, they see you have something they want and they take they hurt you etc. They aren't doing it because you're black, or Jewish or whatever they're doing it to gain something.

(I'm not the best writer but I hope I got my point across.)

Motive and supplemental facts leading up to the crime . Are part of the basis for the action / crime .
These are issues of choice , by whomever commit the crime .. in order to deter such actions and the resulting
Fallout that may come from such actions , very probably be treated in the strictest manner allowed by law.
( Imho ) .