This means that if someone commits any kind of crime against a gay/lesbian person, they will not ONLY be charged for that crime, but also for hate crimes, similar to the way someone would be prosecuted if they committed a crime against someone of a certain ethnic background.
2007-08-11 11:46:16 · 12 answers · asked by Ukrgrl 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Punish the ACT, not the motive. It is not possible to know the motive anyway. If I shoot a minority, does that mean I hate minorities, or did I just hate that individual? It could be either and there is no way for you to know.
coragryph is DEAD WRONG about what hate crime laws are. They CLAIM to be about the motive, but the motive IS NEVER known. The ONLY thing that is EVER proven in practice is the group to which the victim belongs.
2007-08-11 12:44:06 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. This question was already answered for you. Speech is not considered a crime. I have the right to say that christians are delusional just like you have the right to say that anyone who engages in homosexual behavior should burn in hell. Our best bets would be, however, not to express this opinion if one of us decided to assault the other one. Its all a matter of prosecution. This legislation makes it easier for district attorneys to prosecute the things that ARE ALREADY CRIMES -- murder, assault, robbery, etc -- as hate crimes, if the victims are obviously chosen because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes carry stiffer penalties. The Hate Crime Prevention Act doesn't "invent" new crimes. It just changes the way that current crimes are prosecuted. Edit -- I'm stealing this from another poster, Delylah, because I remember reading it and thinking that its the best example of how INTENT and SPEECH can be considered in prosecuting crimes, without making intent and speech crimes themselves: "I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the thought is not what is being criminalized. For example, the act of murder is a crime. I can think about killing someone -- and we have all done this, I'm sure -- and the thought is not a crime. I have thought about killing a certain person down to the point of specific details. And again, this is not a crime. However, if I had actually killed the person, and I had taken the time to think it out carefully, that -- in itself -- would have been a criminal act. It would have been pre-meditated, and I would have committed first degree murder. First-degree murder is prosecuted differently than second degree murder. Still, thinking about killing someone has never been made a crime. Even saying, "I'd like to kill so-and-so!" has never been made a crime. These laws have been in effect for YEARS. This proves that we can consider intent in terms of prosecution without making the thought a crime. The Hate Crime Prevention Act is no different."
2016-05-20 00:31:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's not what it means.
It means if someone attacks a person -- SOLELY because that person is gay -- then they can be punished more. Hate crimes are a sentence enhancement on an existing crime -- they are not a separate crime.
If the person attacks an individual for some other reason, unrelated to the fact that they are gay or a minority or whatever, they cannot be punished more severely -- the enhancement is only if the REASON for the attack was primarily based on hatred of the entire group.
It makes that group hatred to be a worse mental state -- just like intentional crimes can be punished more severely than reckless or accidental crimes -- because the mental state is one where the attacker wants to attack the ENTIRE GROUP and these victims were the first members of that group the attacker found so far.
2007-08-11 11:49:38 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it's ridiculous, isn't it? Does it then follow that a guy who beats and kills his heterosexual wife or girlfriend or both is committing a love crime? The good news is that so-called hate crimes are hard to prove - at least in Canada. It's probably easy as pie in the Evil Empire, which seems determined to put absolutely everyone in jail. In Canada, anyway, the police have to find evidence that shows perp knew victim AND had discriminatory beliefs about the group victim represents.
2007-08-11 11:57:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have no problem with hate crime legislation--especially since it means what Coragryph said. It can't be used just because a crime was committed against a gay. It can only be used because there wouldn't have BEEN a crime unless the person had been gay; because THAT is why the person was victimized.
2007-08-11 11:51:59 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I do not think it is right to add extra charges based on the victim's race or sexual preference or anything else. If a gay man and a straight man are both murdered, why should it be that the murderer of the gay man gets life with no parole and the murderer of the straight man only gets 20 to life with the chance for parole? Both men are just as dead, neither is more "tragic" than the other.
2007-08-11 11:57:27 · answer #6 · answered by Catnip 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's just Democrat stuff.
It also means that if a Gay is molesting your child, and you say anything derogatory about gays, you can go to prison for years.
It's just more Democrat Freaky stuff.
Better get used to it.
2007-08-11 12:10:04 · answer #7 · answered by wolf 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with coragryph. I just hope that this type of legislature extends to all people who are attacked because race, sexual orientation or religion.
2007-08-11 11:57:13 · answer #8 · answered by Debbi 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think catagory of people should be shielded by the hate crime laws..if someone assualts then the crime is assualt..no special laws needed
2007-08-11 11:52:29 · answer #9 · answered by John 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I take issue when certain segments of the population get special treatment under the law by being louder and more obnoxious than normal people.
2007-08-11 11:55:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋