2007-05-09 13:21:31 · 9 answers · asked by jared b 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They should do away with the hate crime bill all together. There are ENOUGH laws on the books to cover ANY crimes one commits regardless of WHY they committed them.
If a person is jumped by five guys and put in the hospital, they should go to prison for assault and battery regardless of why they jumped that person.
2007-05-09 13:26:29 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A crime is a crime. Regardless of the race, religion or sexual preference of the perpetrator or the victim. A crime is a crime.
Hate crime bill needed to be vetoed.
2007-05-09 13:28:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I feel that laws are enacted to create a civilized society. They are a means to an end, not the end themselves. Next, the penalties for the breaking of those laws are based upon two factors: One, the damage to civilized society, and the likelihood of the lawbreaker to commit that crime again. If a battered and beaten wife kills her husband in a rage, she will be charged with a degree of murder, but that will be less than if a man kills the shop owner of a store he is robbing. The factors of the two listed criteria are different, and that affects the outcome. This leads to my point that hate crimes should be penalized differently and more stringently. What is in a person’s head while committing a crime should affect how society deals with them.
2007-05-09 13:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by J S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad it was vetoed. Hate crime laws are the first step down the road to "thought crime" and censorship.
If the state can punish crimes more harshly because of bias, they can easily punish for bias itself. If the state can punish for bias, they can easily punish for holding any unpopular or socially unacceptable opinion.
2007-05-09 13:28:33 · answer #4 · answered by timm1776 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hadn't heard much about it. If it was typical of hate crime legislation (racist, infringing upon free speach, violating the 14th amendment, etc), I'm glad it was vetoed.
2007-05-09 13:27:43 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate crimes discriminate a crime is a crime, that is why theu have max and min terms. It's already built into the system.
2007-05-09 13:28:24 · answer #6 · answered by Ghost Rider 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A grossly unnecessary bill that was much more about pandering to the democratic base than social progress.... we do not need MORE protected classes in the law.
2007-05-09 13:27:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The law should apply to everyone, not just certain people.
2007-05-09 13:37:26 · answer #8 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the thought police will try again soon.
2007-05-09 13:30:56 · answer #9 · answered by genny_gump 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋