Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. We need to eliminate the idea of "hate crime" since we now can see it was just the first step on the road to speech and thought control. If you don't see that you're blind.
Crime is crime and we already have various degrees of things. We don't need to add on top "how does this person really feel about people like you?" to the mix. It's too wishy washy.
Yes they should be punished more harshly. Those who say no don't know anything about American history and its long history of ugly, violent oppression of non-whites. But calling it history is a misnomer because we are still living with it today. Blacks are still getting executed by racist cops every single day for no reason other than that they are black.
And there it is. "Hate crimes" are a special designation to punish white people.
There was a recent attack on two Latinos here in Utah recently, by a man shouting "I hate Mexicans" and "I'm here to kill a Mexican." I've read articles in our paper about how horrible it is that the attacker can't be prosecuted for a "hate crime" under Utah law. He'll be charged with aggravated assault and some other weapons and drug charges.
This got me wondering why "hate crimes" are sometimes treated differently. If the attacker was angry about something else, something other than them being Mexican, why would that matter? Should the reason for the attack make a difference in what the charges are?
"Hate crime" is just another way for some people to push their agenda onto others. A crime is a crime is a crime. I don't think there's a single crime out there where people are beat up, murdered, or otherwise attacked that came out of anything but hate.
It's bs, and the left knows it.
That is my thinking, and largely why I started this thread.
Yet intent does matter in some areas of the law, which is another reason for my wondering about this topic.
A crime is a crime. There’s no hate crime just like there’s no hate speech.
I would disagree that "there's no hate speech." In the article I quoted, the attacker was shouting "I hate Mexicans." That would pretty much be the epitome of hate speech.
(I'm not saying there should be no 1st amendment protection protection for hate speech, btw, just confused that you could think there is no such thing).
I was pro-hate crimes until seeing how lopsided they are. I think we need to get rid of the phrase altogether.
As for hate speech, not a fan of that phrase either, because it's also very lopsided and leads to the justification for silencing some people. If hate speech exists, why are politicians like Maxine Waters immune? If you take the things she's said and have them coming out of any other mouth and it would be called hate speech. And anyone who denies that is a damn liar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the article I quoted, the attacker was shouting "I hate Mexicans." That would pretty much be the epitome of hate speech.
