Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    The nature of the crime always has a place in the court room. For instance its clearly a worse crime to kill someone because he's black than it is to kill someone because you found him sleeping with your wife. Both are clearly bad, but one is sorely provoked and an action most of us can relate to, even if we don't condone it.

    Secondly, to use the same examples again, someone who would attack and kill a man for the color of his skin is a greater risk to society as a whole than a man who would attack a guy sleeping with his wife, something the justice system should keep into account.
    No a person who commits any random crime against someone is a greater risk to society as a whole. Killing someone for sleeping with your wife isn't random.

    Skin color should have nothing to do with it but whether a crime was committed against any stranger in a random act should.

  2. #42
    I'm with Nixx on this one, to the point where I personally consider prosecuting someone for a hate crime to be borderline constitutional (since the portion of the punishment that comes from a hate crime amounts to punishing a person for their beliefs; while freedom of thought isn't explicitly outlined by the first amendment, it is the fundamental foundation of the other personal freedoms outlined therein).

    Yes, state of mind and motivation are relevant, but I think what's been missed thus far is that people are not differentiating between categories of belief. As another example:

    Case A: I killed a man because I know him and hate him on a personal level
    Case B: I killed a man because I hate his skin color

    Both are equally evil in my opinion, because they are both crimes motivated by base hatred of the other person with no provoking or mitigating factor, yet the former is not likely to be considered a "hate crime".... somehow, the law considers the latter to be worse, and the only differentiating factor is the nature of the belief. Since that is the only difference, and the latter case will be treated as a worse offense and given a more severe punishment, that difference in punishment is aimed explicitly at the difference in belief.

    To phrase this another way, I believe that prosecuting hate crimes more severely than other crimes with a similar motivation is no different than prosecuting racism itself, which would include racist speech and racist thought. Since the latter are protected actions by the first amendment, I don't understand why the actions can be more severely punished. (To be clear, I'm not arguing that hate crimes shouldn't be punished, just that there shouldn't be more or less severe punishments based on what you're hating, or why.)

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by darkwarrior42 View Post
    I believe that prosecuting hate crimes more severely than other crimes with a similar motivation is no different than prosecuting racism itself, which would include racist speech and racist thought. Since the latter are protected actions by the first amendment, I don't understand why the actions can be more severely punished.
    There are limits to free speech. Often those limits occur when the "speech" physically affects another person, or immediately incites somebody to physically affect another person.

    Also note that this isn't limited to race.

    Note further that "hate crime" is quite narrow in definition. If I walk up and punch you in the face in a bar because I don't like that you're male, it's not a hate crime. It's assault and battery, disturbing the peace, and probably other things. But not a hate crime.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •