Why are "hate crimes" worse than other crimes? (Clinton, terror)

[Delahanty]

They're not.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

They're not.

You're right.

[Tyster]

So called 'hate' crimes are predicated on the thoughts of the perpetrator. In other words they are thought crimes.

All hate crime legislation should be repealed.

[Felix C]

I did not see why those Rodney King P.O.s were acquitted for excessive force and assault and then arrested and tried on Civil Rights violation. It seemed as a redundant charge on the second go around.

[fireking]

You say this with a straight face. As the left wing black lies murder pull people out of cars and beat them for being white and riot you can still say this BS and not feel like an idiot?

[Oldhag1]

I have a problem with hate crimes because:

• It allows the Feds jurisdiction over crimes that constitutionally should be left to state or local authorities.
• It is used to get around the constitutional right to not be subjected to double jeopardy.
• It is NOT applied in an equitable manner.

[swbtoo]

Because simple run-of-the-mill crimes show more care and concern for the victims?
In other words they're not hateful.

To liberals there's a difference. I don't see any. All crime is hateful.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by Tyster

So called 'hate' crimes are predicated on the thoughts of the perpetrator. In other words they are thought crimes.

this is exactly what I have said for years.
spot on.

[homeonthelittlemountain]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

I never quite understood what constitutes a "hate crime" and why the punishment for one is greater than a good ole friendly crime. What does that say to the victim of as non hate crime (whatever that means); basically that their pain and suffering isn't as worthy of the pain and suffering of a victim of a hate crime?

I don't understand. Who said a hate crime is "worse" than any other crime? Since when has a distinction been made between the two, particularly with regard to the level of suffering?

[Kracer]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

I never quite understood what constitutes a "hate crime" and why the punishment for one is greater than a good ole friendly crime. What does that say to the victim of as non hate crime (whatever that means); basically that their pain and suffering isn't as worthy of the pain and suffering of a victim of a hate crime?

Hate crimes are a legal slaute to social justice.


Everyone want to be equal, wants fairness. Then by all means any crime committed on anyone should carry the full weight of justice.


Get rid of the 'I'm special" nonsense. Many protected species don't want equality they want to be special.


Is justice so rigid it cannot differentiate the severity of a crime and appropriate sentencing???? the justice system needs an overhaul.