Hate Crime Laws...Do we need them?

Question

What do you think of hate crime legislation? If someone attacks or kills another person, does it matter why? If you have two people that commit a crime and one does it out of hatred, should one person be treated different than the other?

Answer 1

Yes, it matters why. Intent has always been relevant.

We don't need special laws for different intent, depending on whether the crime was motivated by hatred of a target group -- but we also don't need any other differences based on intent, or lack of intent -- if a crime is a crime based solely on the results.

By your argument, if someone was careless and caused a person to become injured or killed, then they should be treated exactly the same as the person who planned and intended the victim to become hurt or killed.

And by that example -- "attempt" crimes also go away -- because if crime is based solely on the result, not the intent, then a failed attempt would be no crime at all, because the result of the action was no harm done.

Hate crimes are just a different level of intent -- just like reckless disregard is more serious than negligence, and just like malicious intent is more serious than reckless disregard. But we don't need those differences -- they just make sense based on the fact that a more dangerous mental state is generally more deserving of punishment.

Answer 2

Hate crime legislation is very much like political correctness. It is another way for the left to control thought and impose its beliefs on the rest of us. Anything the left considers worthy of greater punishment suddenly becomes a more serious crime. Isn't it remarkable that no one every brings up the notion of a hate crime when a black kills/attacks/rapes a white. The reverse, however, why that demands more jail time, greater publicity, the involvement of Jesse Jackson and uncle Al Sharpton. Hate crime legislation is a clear form of "reverse racism" and should be done away with.

Answer 3

I believe that there is a place for hate crime legislation. If a person commits a crime solely because of one's race, creed, sexual orientation, whatever, they need to be punished for doing so. A hate crime shows that it was thought out, premeditated, rather than a crime of passion, which is committed in the heat of the moment.

Answer 4

Legislation is, or should be, regarded as society's effort to define justice. A hate crime law says that certain motivations for a crime are worse than other motivations. And saying so is society's way of teaching its citizens -- it's hate-filled citizens -- that hatred of other people is wrong and that the hate-filled persons must try harder to curb their feelings, to keep a leash on those feelings.

Yes, it does matter why. Let me take this down from murder to something less drastic: vandalism.

Suppose I go to the shopping mall and park my car in the parking lot. An hour later, when I'm done shopping, I come back out to my car and find out that my tires have been slashed and someone has spray-painted "SOB" on my car. Naturally, I call the police and report it. Suppose that I get lucky and the police do, in fact, discover the perpetrators. It would not surprise me to find out that the vandals were teenagers who were motivated to do that to my car out of a kind of boredom -- being teenagers with "nothing to do" they thought it would be fun to vandalize someone else's car. Okay, they've been caught and I would not be very upset at all if they were given only the minimum sentence allowed under the law.

But suppose that I am in my neighborhood and that there are a number of teenagers in my neighborhood who know that I am gay and they have been persistently harassing me, calling me names every time they see me, and saying a variety of vicious things about me. Now suppose that one day when I am about to get in my car at my own home, I discover that, since the last time I saw my car, my tires have been slashed and the word "FAG" has been spray-painted on my car. At this point, I know who did it to me and I know why. And I am angrier at this crime than I am at the other one, because I know that these motives are worse. The vandals who did this did it for a worse reason than the vandals at the parking lot. It doesn't matter that the crime was functionally the same at both scenes. One crime is clearly worse, even though my car is no worse shape. What has been affected is my emotions -- my feeling of outrage at the way I have been treated.

Answer 5

First, don't mistake hate crimes with one person "hating" another person. Hate crimes are crimes against society, not against an individual.

Currently the US government is holding foreign nationals in military prisons without public trial for terrorism, a hate crime.
At least with a clear definition of hate crimes everyone will be entitled to equal representation under the Law.

Not "Everyone is equal, some more equal than others."

Answer 6

No, I don't believe we do any more. Maybe 45-50years ago, but not anymore. The majority of people are perfectly capable of getting along. No matter what the news people or Sharpton/Jackson say. The hate crime laws provide an uneven table of punishment options for prosecutors looking to curry favor with certain groups. Not needed and not fair. I think we can all agree that there are so many legitimate reasons to kick someones a** that race needn't ever enter the equation.

Answer 7

Any crime, especially physical or assult crimes, are acts of hate and disrespect. So no we do not need hate crime laws because justice is supposed to be blind to the color of the skin. These are feel good things put in by politicians to appease certain groups.

Answer 8

Hate crime legislation is an attempt to police thought. It's wrong.

Let's look at three scenarios, with two men, Bert and Ernie.

Bert beats up Ernie because Ernie was sleeping with Bert's wife.
Bert beats up Ernie because Ernie cut him off in traffic.
Bert beats up Ernie because Ernie is Orange, and Bert is part of a "Yellow Pride" organization that teaches intolerance of Orange people.

So, hate crime legislation would tell us to treat the last one differently than the first two, even though the result is the same -- Ernie's in the hospital.

Answer 9

Ultimately each and every crime is based on some sort of hate, so to classify them based up on gender, sexuality or race is just wrong. We do not them, and each criminal should be punished accordingly.

I know theft may not be viewed as a crime driven by hate - so, let me explain. I look at it as though the thief hates the fact that they don't have/need something, or they hate the fact that the other person/business has it, and they don't. They therefore intent to hurt that person or business based upon their hate. . .

Answer 10

You can only prosecute somebody once for a crime, usually hate malice, lack of remorse are all taken in to consideration when it comes to the severity of the sentence by the judge. Adding any more to the legislation might actually confuse the issue possibly giving just plain old murderers a lighter sentence.