Why shouldn't people who murder others for their race or sexual orientation receive a special punishment?

Question

Another person here has posted a question in which she argues that the hate crimes bill that the Senate is considering is unnecessary, because all crimes are hate crimes. However, I beg to differ. Matthew Shepard was beaten, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence, and left to die, simply because he was gay. James Byrd, Jr. was chained to a pickup truck and dragged until he was decapitated, just because he was black. There is a HUGE difference between committing atrocities such as these on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and religion and killing someone simply because of a personal grudge or for profit. After all, there's big difference between dragging a man to death just because he's black and robbing a convenience store and shooting the cashier just to get money to feed a drug habit.Our government needs to send a message LOUD AND CLEAR that crimes that motivated by prejudice against certain groups will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely.

Answer 1

Because it is not fair justice.

If a murderer kills a child, why should she get a lesser penalty than someone who murders a homosexual?

If a murderer kills a police officer, why should he get lesser penalty than someone who murders a homosexual?

I saw this on the ballot once in California. They wanted stiffer penalties for murderers who kill police officers. While I support law enforcement officers in every way, I will not support them getting preference under the law. In all the pro/con articles on the ballot measures, nobody wrote a con on it, and it passed.

So now, if a murderer kills a child, woman, or any other citizen, it is a lesser crime than killing a police officer. In other words, we are of lesser value than someone paid by the government to protect us.

God bless our law enforcement officers, you are the greatest, be we should have equal protection under the law.

Answer 2

First of all a "hate crime" statute is more about the chosen victim of a crime and not the crime.

If you drag someone behind a car until they are decapitated, it is called first degree murder which carries the death penalty.

If you tack on a hate crime on top of murder 1, what are they going to do, kill you twice?

People can get beaten and pistol whipped for reasons other than race or sexual orientation and the punishment should be the same if you do this to a white or black, gay or straight person.

You can't just assume the motive was because they were a minority or gay.

Equal rights means equal punishment for the crime committed as well.

Answer 3

Okay there is a huge difference in the motivations behind these acts and a huge difference in the perception of these acts. And it is a tragedy that some people would allow themselves to be pushed to such awful acts simply because of another's race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. But as disgusted as I may feel, I cannot argue that specific legislation should be enacted to enforce different penalties on these offenders based solely on the thought behind the actions. A crime is a crime and the punishment should be universal to the verdict of the judge and jury. I do not think a different law should govern the outcome, but rather the penalty should remain decided by the attending judge and jury. To continue an argument of this fashion requires that you outwardly deny any faith in your court systems. If the people who decide the fate of a criminal continue doing the job the are set to, then we will not need legislation to predetermine the severity of punishment. God Bless!

Answer 4

Maybe instead, laws should be passed that consider the method employed to commit murder.

The grotesque nature of the crimes you described would have been just as grotesque if they were committed on a straight or white person.

I don't think that a person's reason for committing the crime should be considered at all.

We are based upon what actions we commit.

Edit: Also consider the ambiguity of what constitutes a hate crime, as well as the law of unintended consequences.

After the passing of this law, every murder of any person who is not a heterosexual white male will be construed as a "hate crime." Imagine the added strain on our already overworked justice system when they start taking the time to determine if a crime was motivated by some sort of prejudice.

Answer 5

By definition, prosecuting a case with such a specification
seeks to punish people for their THOUGHTS (or more precisely their perceived thoughts........as perceived by whom?). Remember the Duke case? Three white men and a black woman? Forget for the moment they're innocent--if Nifong had his way--they WOULD HAVE BEEN prosecuted as a hate crime (white v black) instead of the non rape that it was. Rape is a serious crime--and should be punished equally by and for EVERY RAPIST regardless of intent!

The most ominous part of the proposed federal hate crimes law, however, is a provision that would establish a "protected class of victims". The spirit of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires state governments to provide "the equal protection of the laws" to all citizens. Yet hate-crime legislation contradicts this purpose by effectively giving
SOME victims special treatment.

Answer 6

I tend to agree with the person who feels that the hate crimes bill is unnecessary. I feel that murdered victims always deserve retribution through the justice system. I don't feel that the loss of one victim is any greater than the loss of another. It is always a travesty when someones life is taken from them prematurely whether it be from racial hate or other reasons.

Sentencing practices in this country are undergoing a lot of reform and one of the ways that is happening is through mandatory sentencing guidelines in which the circumstances of the crime are considered. The heinousness of the crime and the cruelty of it to the victim should ALWAYS be considered in sentencing. I don't think that a special bill needs to be created for that to happen. There is definitely a huge difference between shooting someone or dragging them to death and that difference needs to be dealt with at sentencing and there doesn't need to be a specific bill to address it.

Answer 7

Because what you'd be doing is punishing not just the crime, but the feelings behind the crime. Punishing people's thoughts and inclinations is not allowed in the United States. After all, being racist or homophobic isn't illegal. Hate crime laws make it punishable if someone acts upon those feelings. But the actions in question are already illegal.

In addition, you're telling the families of people who were "just" murdered that the people who killed their family members don't deserve to be punished as much as others because, after all, they didn't kill them because they had animosity against their group. No matter why someone is killed or beaten, they're just as dead or injured.

Answer 8

Why is the death of someone's love one different from the death of someone else love one because of what we believe maybe the motivation?

Murder is murder plain and simple.

Matthew Shepard is case with a lot more twists than the press will let us know about it.

More laws won't do anything. Those who kill Matthew and James violated how many laws?
What makes you think a few more is going to stop anyone?

A gang of whites jump a black kid and it is all over the press about "hate" crime.

Yet a white family lost gets killed by a black gang and no crys of "hate" crime.

Murder is a hate crime pure and simple.

Answer 9

Actually, there is conflicting evidence in the Matthew Shepard case as to motive.

I believe that the circumstances of the crime are taken into account routinely in sentencing.The fear some have with this type of law is that it criminalizes thoughts when 100% of the focus should be on the crime itself. Also, it gets us into a bit of a sticky issue, because many statistics show that "interracial" crimes, even those not considered "property" crimes that could be accounted for by "income inequality," are more likely to be black-on-white than white-on-black. Do prosecutors really want to be charging, say, black men with a more serious crime for the rape of a white woman? Or will the law only be used in "politically correct" cases?

Even pointing out these issues and discussing them makes me uncomfortable. I don't WANT to have to think about crime breakdowns by race. And I mean no disrespect by doing so, although when race is used to answer a question that cannot be answered in any other way, the accusations of bigotry automatically begin. Imagine how it will work in the courtroom! It seems as though it could sidetrack us and drain energy from focusing on the main crimes.

Sometimes the goal of eradicating racist attitudes is better served by putting less emphasis on race, not more.

(In an interesting irony, President Bush has been criticized for all the executions that took place in Texas while he was governor, but I believe two of the three creeps who murdered James Byrd were sentenced to death. I think the third one got life for agreeing to testify against the others. As Bush pointed out, there's no stricter penalty to give them.

Apparently, Matthew Shepard's father, having more humanity than the skunks that killed his son, asked that they not be given the death penalty.)

Good question, though!

PS I miss Heidi. We never agreed but I think she kept me from being too harsh at times. And she was used to the fact that I always kept revising my answers right up 'till she closed them!

Answer 10

why have a special category of hate. if you kill you hate. i think life in prison, something like in "escape from new york", should be punishment. i do not see the need for categorized hate. just like jessicas' law, a mandatory sentence should be put in. min 30 years with no parole. maybe a public caning by family members in a public area for the killer.and to ask the question, what other types of murders are there that are not hate crimes?