Should assaulting a homosexual person be considered a 'hate crime' and carry a harsher than normal penalty?

Answer 1

no, the penalties for assault are harsh enough--I'm gay and I would never scream "hate crime"

Answer 2

If the motive for the assault was based on the victim's sexual orientation, then yes, that would be a hate crime. If the aggressor was simply drunk or robbing the victim, and didn't find out the victim's orientation till after the fact, then no, it is not a hate crime.

This brings up the issue of "hate crimes" in general - should crimes targeted at certain groups carry a harsher than normal penalty?
It could be argued that ANY crime is motivated by hate, and that by granting special protection to particular groups only re-inforces the idea of inequality. South Park argued this most persuasively and logically.
While I agree with this general theory, I feel that, in practice, hate crimes SHOULD carry a harsher penalty to send a message that society/government is committed to protecting groups that receive an unfair amount of stigmatism. Hate is a very difficult and nebulous thing to deter, so a strong social message that "we won't look the other way while this group is abused" is necessary. It's essentially trying to create a world where only intolerance is not tolerated, as indefinable as that may seem.

Answer 3

I'm just not sure about the term "hate crime". I mean, technically speaking, isn't all assault hatefully motivated? We don't assault people based on love. It is impossible to distinguish between smacking a guy in the mouth over a heated argument, and smacking a guy in the mouth because he made a pass at you, legally. In both cases, the assault occurred first in the mind of the assailant, before the blow was struck. It was his state of mind that determines whether or not he was provoked. However, if the gay person was simply sitting at a table, and a stranger approached him and started beating on him, just because he was gay, the only excuse would be that seeing a gay person provoked his rage.

The "Hate Crime" statutes were intended for those individuals who specifically target and assault people with no other provocation than their own hatred for them. This makes the crime pre-meditated with intent to cause bodily injury or death. Assaulting someone simply because they are existing in your presence is not sufficient provocation. It is this standard that distinguishes a hate crime from a simple assault. Should it carry a harsher penalty? Maybe. We cannot legislate people's thoughts and feelings, but we can legislate the extent to which they can express them. Nobody can claim that their right to hate someone includes the right to eliminate or injure the object of their hatred. Pre-meditated murder carries a harsher penalty than murder committed during a heated argument, because there was a motive. Hate is also a motive, so, in one sense, there should be a stiffer penalty.

Answer 4

No. A homosexual is a human being. What does the way that a person performs the sex act have to do with anything? Why do the laws reflect how a person performs the sex act? Why is the sex act broadcasted out in the open when it is something private? The answer is because it has to be in order for the stigma to be removed. So, why doesn't the sex act of pedophiles get the backing of the law? There is a stigma there too. NAMBLA is an association of homosexuals who want to change the law so that it's not illegal for homosexual men to have sex with young boys. What kind of crime is that, a hate crime? Where is the justice is calling assaulting a homosexual a hate crime, but not the sexual assualt of a young boy by a homosexual the same? Is it because it's a sex crime? The homosexuals call it love.

Answer 5

It depends on the motivation behind the assault. If it can be proved in court that the basis of the assault was because the person was a homosexual and for no other reason then yes, it should get a harsher penalty. Same goes for blue-eyed people (for example), if I had a hatred for all blue-eyed people and went around bashing them for no other reason, which could be proved, that would be a hate crime and it would deserve a harsher penalty than if I just bashed anyone on the street.

I do not condone bashing of any sort, by the way.

Answer 6

No. The Equal Protection Clause of the constitution gives everyone the same amount of protection. If someone robs me and beats me up and then a half a mile down the road somebody else does the same thing to a gay person and says a few anti-gay words to him, the person who beats up the gay person is going to get a much stiffer penalty than the one who beat me up. Sooner or later the thugs are going to decide to rob anyone but gays. I don't see gays getting killed everywhere in this country. There may have been one case in the last 30 years but that doesn't merit hate crime or hate speech laws. Laws like this are telling society that gays somehow have more value than other people. George Orwell was right. His only mistake was that he was about 25 years too early with his 'Big Brother' concept. Why nobody is challenging these hate crime and hate speech laws as a violation of equal protection is a mystery to me.

Answer 7

Given that I have little respect for the flaws in the modern legal/penal system, this is a rough, but GOOD question oh fiery one.

From my perspective... I'd say yes, a hate crime is a hate crime whether it's committed because your dog made poo in someone else's yard, their culture, religion or skin color is different or based on who they're attracted to and love. Some sort of educational rehab should be tacked on... but that's just my opinion... I've got serious issues with the system as is already....

edit/addition: IF it can be, of course, proven that it was a "hate crime" which isn't really always so simple. And for the person who claimed "equal under the law"???? In what reality are LGBTs "equal under the LAW"?! We're not even allowed half of the rights under the same law that heteros are in civil matters (i.e. marriage and all the laws that go w/ that, right to serve the country w/o discrimination, etc.)... so that "equal under the law" bunk is a lie.

_()_

Answer 8

No. A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. The crime is "assault" - the only difference should be on the type of assault - not the status of the victim.

If it's simple assault - there should be a set penalty. Assault with a deadly weapon - harsher. Assault with intent to kill - harsher still.

But status of the victim?? WHY? It makes no sense to set artificial standards when we have laws on the books!! Is my broken nose, caused be some idiot, worth more than yours, just because I am a Priest and because the idiot hates Priests? No.

The "motive" should not matter - the motive should NEVER matter!! That gets into "thought policing" - and we do not want to go there!!

Answer 9

You know, that is a hard question. I answered yes to a church being burnt down being a hate crime. But, reading on here, I agree with some people saying that all crimes should have equal punishment.

I think if the assault is only because the person is gay, or because it is a church...then maybe it is a hate crime. But, aren't most crimes done out of hate?

Good questions...

Answer 10

i might might desire to declare specific. Random arsonists do not many times burn down homes that are occupied on a time-honored foundation. a good form of the time church homes are burnt down because of fact of non secular adjustments or different sociopathic themes. i might say that's, surely, a hate crime. I additionally think of falsely reporting mothers and fathers to CPS because of fact they are actually not Christian is a hate crime and could carry a harsh penalty as nicely. So might desire to having bills like laptop's deleted.

Answer 11

Assaulting a person should be a hate crime and carry whatever penalty it carries. Why should assaulting one person be an worse than assaulting another?