i think it should be.
2006-10-18 15:21:44 · 22 answers · asked by slippie 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No.
A person shouldn't be punished for their beliefs, no matter how offensive you or I may find them. If we make an exception for racism, on what grounds can we deny those who would make belief in communism, Islam, feminism, or atheism illegal?
Nor should a person be punished for racist actions, if those actions do not violate the rights of others. It may be cruel to refuse to sit with someone of another race at school, but a person shouldn't face legal punishment for it.
Racist actions which DO violate the rights of others should be punished....but only because they are violations of the rights of others, not because they are racist.
2006-10-18 16:02:25 · answer #1 · answered by timm1776 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses. The word "capital" is derived from the Latin "capitalis," which means "concerning the head"; therefore, to be subjected to capital punishment means to figuratively lose ones head....................
RACISM;
any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.. Wouldn't capital punishment also be racist?
2006-10-18 15:41:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
broadly speaking, you are able to not forget with regard to the social repercussion of the previous. The Civil Rights stream become waged interior the in the course of the 1950's and 1960's. that's extremely cutting-edge on the human civilization scale. It takes many an era for mentalities to transfrom. Apples do not fall that some distance from timber. it is going to take a mutually as. Black and white race family members are emphasied progressively because of the fact of our hyperlink to the basics and concept of usa. Black subculture is pop subculture. it quite is been accompanied, extracted, exported into the yankee mass. Black persecution may be, possibly, greater arguable because of the fact visually we are least confusing to discriminate against. Black helpful properties (uninhibited) are in simple terms approximately the different of white helpful properties. The huge difference in our indigenous, community, or tribal origins are consistently on demonstrate juxtaposed in considered one of those white international. it quite is an common superficial reminder that we are distinctive.
2016-11-23 18:47:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it shouldn't.
If you commit a crime against another person, it shouldn't matter whether it was because of racism or not. A crime is a crime.
And if we are talking about speech, that is protected under the First Amendment here in the U.S. Everyone has the right to sound like an asshole if they want to.
2006-10-18 15:34:25 · answer #4 · answered by johnlb 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If a capital crime is committed because of racism then yes.
2006-10-18 15:30:52 · answer #5 · answered by Reba K 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Racism is ones crime against theirself. Committing a crime against yourself is the worst self-inflicted punishment that exists. So, it should not, but when one decides to hate themselves by being ignorant and transfer that to an act of hate against other then that should be a capital crime.
2006-10-18 16:00:30 · answer #6 · answered by rakie 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. As much as I hate it. Racism is a social problem. It would be difficult to legislate againt it. Whose value system would be used to define rascist?
2006-10-18 15:25:40 · answer #7 · answered by Arnold M 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
a capitol offense over what somebody thinks?
that would be against everything america stands for
2006-10-18 15:27:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Idk if ur in the U.S. but the First Ammenedment lets you yalk **** about anything but there is a Law a agianst Hate Crimes such as vandilism/murder/assualt ect. but the problem is its to hard to prove i think they should change it a little so it would be easier to prove but w/e to answer your question it kinda alredy is
2006-10-18 15:26:15 · answer #9 · answered by Patrix 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
??? No! People should be allowed by law to think whatever they want. Only acts should be punished, and those according to the crime committed.
If we start enforcing idealisms, we lose one of the greatest things about our country: our right to believe what we want.
2006-10-18 15:24:44 · answer #10 · answered by timtheenchanter 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋