What is your point of view on hate crimes?

Question

I think the law of a hate crime is stupid
If you hit someone youll be charged with assault or battery but if there black, asin, mexican , or any other race its a hate crime
thats so retarded if u tag on a wall isnt that a hate crime because you hate that wall of when you burn a car isnt that a hate crime cuz u hate that car
the government tries hard to redeem for segregation but just created a new modern segregation by your race
i think if you cause bodily harm to another that is what a real hate crime is. if its racial how about some evidence that its racial .
what is a asian dude talk crap and threatens you
u cant hit him cause you'll be tried as hate crime and racist

so what is your point of view

Answer 1

The government can't read a person's mind. Killing someone or assaulting someone is just as wrong no matter what your motivation. Having the ability to decide why a criminal commits a crime is stupid, wrong, and certainly not verifiable. If you kill a white person, he is just as dead as when you kill a black person. The reason should not matter, just the crime.

Answer 2

You misunderstand both the operation and the purpose of hate crime legislation.

Hate crime legislation is a sentence enhancement to some other criminal act or statute.

The reason hate crimes are considered worse is a function of the mental state involved. Just like intentional murder can be treated as more severe than reckless homicide (manslaughter) or negligent homicide. The more culpable mental state allows for a greater punishment, even though the physical act and result (death of a person) is the same.

Similarly, where a crime is committed based on racial or gender or religious or other prejudice (thus being a hate-motivated crime), the mental state is not merely a desire to harm one person. It's a desire to harm or destroy everyone who exhibits a certain trait. The victim at the time just happens to be one of many who exhibit that trait. Thus, the the victim was attacked not for anything unique to that individual (as in most other crimes) but because the victim was a representative of some larger group.

That different mental state compared to other crimes allows for the sentence enhancement.

People ask why all crimes aren't considered hate crimes. The answer should be obvious from the above definition. If you attack one person because they made you angry, that's hatred against the the individual you are attacking. But based on that same motivation, you would have no reason to attack a thousand other people, unless each one of them individually also made you angry.

Hate crimes are where you want to attack those thousand other people, because they all share the same trait (are all members of whatever group) that you hate. And this particular victim just happened to be the first one you came across. But your attack on them had nothing to do with them as an individual. It was your intent to attack an entire large group, and they just happened to be handy.

Answer 3

There is a reason for having a protected class. In reality, people ARE singled out for their race and beaten, and synagogues and black churches ARE burned out of racial hate and religious intolerance.

Hate crime laws require a showing that the criminal act was motivated by victim's race, ethnic origin, sex and sometimes, sexual orientation. Perpetrators aren't simply prosecuted for a hate crime because the victim is a member of a different race.

One rationale for hate crime laws is that the victim is targeted on the basis of a characteristic he or she can't change, and is therefore unable to prevent the attack. Such crimes make all members of the group feel more vulnerable. Think of it in terms of gays, and you know this is true.

Another rationale is that enhancing the penalties for racist actions discourages them and makes for a more peaceful society. Think of roving bands of blacks who are out to kill or maim all the whites in the neighborhood. This is behavior the law should discourage, and the enhanced penalties of hate crimes is one way.

One more thing about the proof of such a crime: there really has to be demonstrable proof of motive, the law does not try to read people's minds. For example, a synagogue is defaced by spray painted racist epithets and death threats. The motive is clear, and the crime and penalty should be greater than simple vandalism such as breaking a random window or spraying a work of art on the side of a bridge.