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.
That isn't the point. It's labeled a hate crime to include more severe punishments to deter these crimes since certain people are more prone to sufferring from crime or being victimized due to their race and now sexual orientation. It's not about saying one crime is more severe than another. It's simply about protecting citizens who are more prone to crime.
Do you think they are effective in reducing crime experienced by those groups?
I don't know.... if they are, I'm not opposed to hate laws, but if they aren't, why have them?
It is sad that gays are so hated they wanted to keep them from getting this status...
It should have flown through the system after Mathew Shepard.
No group should get special treatment, its the entire core concept behind this nations purpose. The reason so many are against this is because it gives special treatment to certain groups. A murder is a murder, a theft a theft, an assault an assault. It doesn't matter the persons specific personal hate and reason for doing it as the crime is the same regardless.
Why should a person who hates homosexuals and kills them be punished any differently than a person who hates red heads, or punk rockers, or any other group? Why is a homosexual or specific race more special than another?
Are not we all afforded "equal" protection under the law? How is this in any way "equal"? Are you saying that gays are more important than another under the protection of the law?
Personally, I think this law is without a doubt unconstitutional.
No group should get special treatment, its the entire core concept behind this nations purpose. The reason so many are against this is because it gives special treatment to certain groups. A murder is a murder, a theft a theft, an assault an assault. It doesn't matter the persons specific personal hate and reason for doing it as the crime is the same regardless.
Why should a person who hates homosexuals and kills them be punished any differently than a person who hates red heads, or punk rockers, or any other group? Why is a homosexual or specific race more special than another?
Are not we all afforded "equal" protection under the law? How is this in any way "equal"? Are you saying that gays are more important than another under the protection of the law?
Personally, I think this law is without a doubt unconstitutional.
When the KKK turns from blacks, jews and homosexuals, and turns to targeting red heads and punk rockers, then you'll have a point.
It's because people haven't been treated as equal that necessitates these laws.
Do you think they are effective in reducing crime experienced by those groups?
I don't know.... if they are, I'm not opposed to hate laws, but if they aren't, why have them?
Whether they can reduce crime remains to be seen, but they can effect societal change. We've come a long way from Jim Crow, and if these laws bring us even further, they will have served a purpose. Indeed, as far as we've come in race relations, any idiot who wishes to perpetuate such hatred should receive the harshest punsishment possible.
Do you think they are effective in reducing crime experienced by those groups?
I don't know.... if they are, I'm not opposed to hate laws, but if they aren't, why have them?
I seriously doubt they are effective in deterrence. Criminals don't read the penal code before they do a crime to make sure their crime doesn't fall into a certain category. This law will have no effect on that.
It will however create circumstances to which people are unfairly prosecuted beyond the proper punishment for their crime because of the subjective nature to which a hate crime will be "classified".
There was an instance where a Christian group was protesting at a Gay Rights parade in Philadelphia and charged with a hate crime claiming they were trying to incite a riot in 2005. I watched the video of it and they were completely peaceful and in-fact were being forcefully obstructed and bullied by those in the parade.
All this law does is give ammo to create crimes that would not otherwise exist. There is no need for them at all. A crime is a crime, plain and simple.
When the KKK turns from blacks, jews and homosexuals, and turns to targeting red heads and punk rockers, then you'll have a point.
It's because people haven't been treated as equal that necessitates these laws.
Actually, I have a valid argument, your response is what is lacking in its ability to properly support a contest to it.
How people treat each other is irrelevant. The law exists to protect everyone equally and if it does not, we adjust it to do so. Hate crime laws are unequal and specifically reserve special treatment over others.
You don't have an argument here. You are supporting unequal treatment under the law as is afforded to us under the constitution. A gay being assaulted will be treated as a more serious offense than that of another.
This is no different than blacks being treated unequally concerning the laws in the past. Martin Luther King Jr. did not fight for "special" treatment, but rather equal treatment.
Your case is "special treatment" and you have no grounds to support it.
Actually, I have a valid argument, your response is what is lacking in its ability to properly support a contest to it.
How people treat each other is irrelevant. The law exists to protect everyone equally and if it does not, we adjust it to do so. Hate crime laws are unequal and specifically reserve special treatment over others.
You don't have an argument here. You are supporting unequal treatment under the law as is afforded to us under the constitution. A gay being assaulted will be treated as a more serious offense than that of another.
This is no different than blacks being treated unequally concerning the laws in the past. Martin Luther King Jr. did not fight for "special" treatment, but rather equal treatment.
Your case is "special treatment" and you have no grounds to support it.
You are conflating rights with crimes. Punishing a crime does not confer rights to anyone, special or otherwise.
It's fun to watch the law and order crowd stick up for the "rights" of criminals. Simply amazing.
Speaking of "law", your response is that of an old lawyers saying:
Quote:
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.”
You are conflating rights with crimes. Punishing a crime does not confer rights to anyone, special or otherwise.
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.
