Other than people full of hate? People who want to think that assault or rape can be ignored when it happens to "one a dem homosexuals."
2007-05-04 02:20:43 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Probably those who believe that any violent crime is, by definition, a hate crime. To single out one set of crimes, or one set of victims as special and to punish those who commit crimes against that class more severely is to create a new class of discrimination.
Is that what you're looking for?
2007-05-04 02:28:14 · answer #1 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I do not "hate" people as you say, but the whole idea of hate crime legislation is an oxymoron. If you commit a crime, it is hateful and disrespectful act against a specific person. We already have laws on the books that state that what the person did is wrong and should be punished.
So why do we have a need for other laws that protect specific groups of people (ie homosexuals, african americans, women, etc.) when the current laws on the books protect them as well as the rest of society?
Hate crimes legislation is political and makes people feel good that they have done a noble deed to protect a specfic group. Does it really benefit society in general?
We have enough laws, what we need is better enforcement and more police on the streets. But regardless of how many police we have, crimes will still occur. Its a fact of life.
2007-05-04 02:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Isn't hate crime the same as "thought" crime? Why should someone get a bigger punishment because they assaulted a person who happened to be of a certain sexual-orientation, religion, or skin color?
What if the victim is overweight, short, timid, has a lousy job, is uneducated, or overly educated, is poor or rich, speaks with an accent, has red hair, dresses differently, or listens to weird music. Can't these be considered hate crimes as well?
In theory any assault could be considered a hate crime since we could always find some attribute about the victim that is unique or in the minority.
2007-05-04 02:33:17 · answer #3 · answered by Tom S 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They want to block passage, because "hate crime" laws are flat-out wrong. A crime is either a crime...or it isn't. Explain to me how an assault, murder, rape...doesn't have HATE as a factor in any crime. By their very nature, these are crimes of hate. When you get right down to it, the motivation of the criminal is irrelevant...it's a crime.
And why is it a hate crime when a person of color is assaulted and NOT a hate crime when a white person is assaulted by a person of color? Are you telling me they don't HATE the white person...ever? Yet, attempts to classify such crimes as hate crimes just aren't successful. So again...either the crime is a crime or it isn't.
2007-05-04 02:32:35 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The people who block the passage of hate crime laws are people who believe in equality for all. I don't understand why being gay would make someone special. No one would suggest that those who would rape a homosexual should not be punished.
2007-05-04 02:37:26 · answer #5 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
To the contrary, I oppose hate crime legislation. If a gay man is beaten to death and a straight man are beaten to death, why should the punishment for one crime be greater than the other? Also, how can anyone truly know the reason the crime occurred. Was the crime committed because the victim was gay or was it committed because the victim wore white tennis shoes? Short of a full on confession by the perpetrator there is no way to determine the thoughts in his head that precipitated the crime. All hate crime legislation does is elevate one segment of society above others. Assault is assault, murder is murder no matter who the victim is.
2007-05-04 02:29:45 · answer #6 · answered by Sailorman 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I try to block any bill that singles out a small segment of society for special treatment based solely upon race, faith, gender, or sexual preference. I think the Constitutional precept of Equal Justice Under The Law requires that all crimes be prosecuted and punished uniformly. A murdered straight man is just as dead as a murdered gay man: why should one killer be punished more or less than the other?
2007-05-04 02:57:47 · answer #7 · answered by Chredon 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BILL WILL ACT AS A MUFFLE TO FREE SPEECH. The general title of the bill is all good and well but the totality and presentation presents real, though untested, fears that preachers and other sects that do not believe in say, gay lifestyle, would be guilty of a crime if someone in that church/mosque/group were to kill someone for being, say , gay. The preacher would be guilty of a hate crime even though all he said was.." God does not authorize a gay lifestyle" and some overzealous member acted on that word to kill someone. Some of us want certain definitions and exclusions included in the bill so that our fundamental right to freedom of worship and belief is not legislated into being a crime!
2007-05-04 02:40:34 · answer #8 · answered by ub6to6 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The point is that you can't distinguish "hate crimes" from other crimes without trying to read people's minds, and I don't want to entrust reading minds to the government.
No one is suggesting that beating or raping someone shouldn't be a crime. We're just saying that beating someone who is gay should be treated NO DIFFERENTLY than beating someone who isn't.
When you start outlawing "hate" you've delved into a very 1984-ish world of "Thought Police" and Big Brother. We don't want to go there.
2007-05-04 02:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by skip742 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What occurs now . . . is that life is going on as favourite. at the same time as those 2 white men tied a black guy to the lower back of a pickup truck many years in the past, and dragged him various miles down a rustic highway till he died--that is a hate crime. at the same time as Matthew Shepard develop into overwhelmed and tied to a fence, then left to die--that is slightly extra complicated, because the attackers were extreme on meth, even though it develop into likely nonetheless a hate crime. yet preaching from the pulpit to assert you imagine something is incorrect or immoral . . . isn't a hate crime. recuperate from it, already! Your exaggerations purely make your self seem stupid, and intensely, very gullible. Take all those political sky-is-falling messages with a grain of salt--or extra effective yet, with the completed salt shaker.
2016-11-25 01:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps people willing to fight for freedom of thought, expression and belief.
Hate crime Bills are not awlays about protecting the innocent from crime- is not a black or gay man assaulted physically/sexually exactly equal to the exact same crime to a white male or female?
Both instances are acts of Hate- why should the crime against a person of different colour or sexuality be effectively given greater weight in sentencing-?
Treating the 'other' as more deserving of tougher sentencing is not only morally bankrupt- but the very worst form of discrimination to negate any victim of crime- matter what colour, race, creed, or sexuality.
Was I wrong to believe (of course in theory) all are EQUAL in the eyes of the law?
2007-05-04 02:28:22 · answer #11 · answered by ? 1 · 6⤊ 1⤋