Should burning down a church be considered a 'hate crime' and carry a harsher than normal penalty?

Question

(((((((((I'm Obsolete))))))))))

Hi, honey!!

Answer 1

nope--arson is arson no matter what building gets torched

Answer 2

If the objective for the attack became based on the sufferer's sexual orientation, then confident, which would be a hate crime. If the aggressor became merely under the effect of alcohol or robbing the sufferer, and did no longer discover out the sufferer's orientation until after the reality, then no, it is not a hate crime. This brings up the problem of "hate crimes" greater often than not - could crimes centred at particular communities carry a harsher than wide-spread penalty? it must be argued that ANY crime is introduced on by making use of hate, and that by making use of granting particular safety to particular communities merely re-inforces the assumption of inequality. South Park argued this maximum persuasively and logically. jointly as I consider this standard concept, i've got faith that, in prepare, hate crimes could carry a harsher penalty to deliver a message that society/government is dedicated to retaining communities that acquire an unfair volume of stigmatism. Hate is a very confusing and nebulous component of discourage, so a stable social message that "we will not look any incorrect way jointly as this team is abused" is needed. it is actually attempting to create a international the place merely intolerance isn't tolerated, as indefinable as that would look.

Answer 3

I would have to say yes. Random arsonists don't usually burn down buildings that are occupied on a regular basis. Most of the time churches are burnt down because of religious differences or other sociopathic issues. I would say it is, in fact, a hate crime. I also think falsely reporting parents to CPS because they are not Christian is a hate crime and should carry a harsh penalty as well. So should having accounts like Laptop's deleted.

Answer 4

Just like for other hate crimes the intent would need to be established. So if the arsonist was just burning buildings indiscrimately, no, but if they were seeking out churches to hurt the religious community, then yes.

Answer 5

What is considered a "normal" penalty?
And why would burning down a Church not be considered a hate crime? if indeed you think that it shouldnt

Answer 6

So if that person that burned down the church, instead bruned down your house, would it be less hateful. No it wouldn't, Church is the house of God and therefore as much a hate crime as if he burned your own house down, unless you think it would be doing society a favor to burn your house down.

Answer 7

Religion is already written in to the US's hate crime policy so it likely would carry the stiffer penalty you ask of.

Answer 8

Yes. If I burned down a Buddhist temple or Jewish Synagog, I'd be charged with a hate crime. Burning any holy place of worship should be a hate crime because if you loved the place, you wouldn't set fire to it.

Answer 9

Yes, just like burning down a mosque or a Shriners Temple.

Answer 10

No, that should be considered a public service.

Disclaimer: I'm kidding. I do not condone the burning of churches (or any other building)

Answer 11

Yes! You destroy god's property, you deserve the worse pentaly possible. Why destroy a place that would always open to you and your family, will try to help you out, and lead you down the right path? I just don't get it.