It is saying that if a person attacks someone, anyone, just because they hate a generic classification of people that the victim belongs to, that is a hate crime. It is saying that attacking someone because you hate their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, is different than attacking someone, for example, because you want their money.
Do you not think it's different? Do you not think that distinction is important? Do you not think we should care why people hurt each other?
Do you not think it's different? Do you not think that distinction is important? Do you not think we should care why people hurt each other?
Criminal science certainly benefits from understanding motives, but I'm not sure we benefit by legislating accordingly. The fact of the matter is that virtually all murders are inspired by hatred, the ones that aren't are arguably more despicable, like killing someone deliberatly with premeditation for money, pleasure, etc. Where irrational hatred is concerned, I'm not sure it really matters what the classification is, it almost seems like deciding to make different punishment criteria for the weapon used, 50 years for a gun but 52 for a lead pipe and 48 for a knife.
Now, insofar as it makes the crime automatically a federal offense, that let's the FBI get involved, and back in the day that made sure corrupt or biased local law enforcement couldn't half-arse an investigation on a dead black man, there certainly was a lot of logic behind it at the time. I'm not sure it fits in too well anymore. I also want to remind everyone that hating people, for whatever reason, is totally legal. Getting together in little groups to talk about how much you hate those f'ing [insert random perjorative here] is legal. If me and some friends hate blondes and beat one to death, that is surely a hate crime as much as the others, if someone punches a smoker bellowing "I hate you f#$%ing smokers!" just committed a hate crime, and we can't say "Well, that's different, they chose to be a smoker" because religion already sets the precedent that it doesn't have to be something your born to like race.
It always comes back to the assumption that there is a difference in the type of 'hate' involved, "I hate him" vs. "I hate them". So realistically it's a hate crime if any plural form of hatred was involved? Can the categories then go on to not just include "I hate jews, blacks, queers..." to "I hate child molesters." Is that different because they broke the law? What then about "I hate pot smokers". I know some of these examples are absurd, but that's the point, and yet there certainly are hate-leaning attitudes out there that get overlooked, "I hate people who eat meat, wear leather, etc" is prevalent enough. Certianly throwing red paint on someone wearing fur seems a hate crime to me, by the standards already in place.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Matthew Shepard act passed
23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM
- 779 Views
Meh
23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM
- 370 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities.
24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM
- 380 Views
Didn't we already slice crimes by degree of intention (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter) pre-Orwell?
24/10/2009 05:23:56 AM
- 358 Views
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
- 361 Views
See..this is much more important than Hate Crime Legislation, and it actually accomplishes something *NM*
24/10/2009 01:52:31 AM
- 129 Views
Agreed, but
24/10/2009 02:12:11 AM
- 330 Views
I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 02:22:46 AM
- 339 Views
I'm sure the law is not supposed to deter crime, but rather to ensure justice.
24/10/2009 03:49:58 AM
- 294 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
- 393 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:51:43 AM
- 357 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
- 336 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:27:35 AM
- 326 Views
So it's inherently worse for a gay man to get beaten up than a straight guy?
24/10/2009 03:45:43 AM
- 314 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ...
24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM
- 335 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone.
24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM
- 323 Views
It does matter to what you were saying, though.
24/10/2009 06:32:32 AM
- 388 Views
One factor in this I don't like though
24/10/2009 01:54:53 PM
- 325 Views
All orientations are protected.
24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM
- 332 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men?
24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM
- 305 Views
Minor point.
24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM
- 353 Views
well since almost everything he said turned out to be BS why not that too?
25/10/2009 02:36:25 PM
- 340 Views