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.
So long as it is EQUALLY APPLIED to ALL GROUPS, I am OK with hate crime legislation for violent crimes, as it's not much different in my mind to any other "mens rea" (i.e., intent) requirement for crimes.
For example: If you accidentally shoot someone while hunting, you probably won't go to jail. If you shoot someone with the INTENT to kill them, you're getting time in prison.
Same injury felt to "shot" person, but the intent/motive factors in to increase the crime's severity and punishment.
I don't believe in hate crime legislation with regard to speech though. Just violent crimes. Like the death penalty, however, my opposition comes not from a philosophical disagreement, but in the troubles with applying the standard EQUALLY to all parties. (Because yes, minorities of all kinds commit hate crimes against majorities of all kinds as well).
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
A crime is a crime. The motivation for it should be taken into account at sentencing but I am opposed to making that a separate criminal category because you are punishing people for "thought" as opposed to the crimes they have committed. But I do think a judge or jury should certainly be able to choose a harsher sentence for the actual crime if it is shown that the motivation was sinister.
A crime is a crime. The motivation for it should be taken into account at sentencing but I am opposed to making that a separate criminal category because you are punishing people for "thought" as opposed to the crimes they have committed. But I do think a judge or jury should certainly be able to choose a harsher sentence for the actual crime if it is shown that the motivation was sinister.
Agreed. Hate crimes came about due to pc motives but also to correct what appeared to be non-convictions or what was perceived to be light sentences for acts perpetrated against gays and minorities. The answer is to fix this issue not add unnecessary laws so you can increase chances for a conviction and/or tougher sentencing.
A crime is a crime. The motivation for it should be taken into account at sentencing but I am opposed to making that a separate criminal category because you are punishing people for "thought" as opposed to the crimes they have committed. But I do think a judge or jury should certainly be able to choose a harsher sentence for the actual crime if it is shown that the motivation was sinister.
I agree with you on this one, Kev. I'm okay with factoring that into sentencing. It think the motive speaks to the level of danger they pose to society.
Yes, I do support Hate Crime laws.
As Christians become an ever smaller group, and suffer more and more from discrimination, hate speech, violent attacks at the hands of devil worshipers atheists etc, the Hate Crimes Laws will increase in importance and go a long way in protecting WHAT EVER minority exists out there.
The key is to ensure that the statutes are set out in such a way that they do not favor any particular minority over another in terms of protection.
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.
