If a man kills another man because of his color, religion, or sexual orientation, the punishment is greater (under US Court Hate Crime laws) than if he had killed him for money.
If a man murders a woman for sex the punishment is less than if a man murders a woman because she was black.
Why?
Upon what authority do we derive the notion that hate that leads to murder is a greater evil than other emotions that drive one to murder?
2007-11-12 05:40:52 · 20 answers · asked by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Craig R - I'm not defending it, but the woman in Texas who drown her 5 kids claims she loved them to death.
So far the pixie pagan has given the best attempt to answer the question - I believe she's saying that hate crimes are double crimes, once against the victim and the second time against the entire racial/religious/orientation group aimed at.
No one has answered part 2 - upon what authority do we claim to legislate an emotion (like hate) and make it more heinous than a non-hate crime.
2007-11-12 05:57:57 · update #1
Skeptic - I'm not saying anything. I am asking a question. If you're going to get your two points, at least try to answer the question.
2007-11-12 05:59:28 · update #2
epidva.... you couldn't be more wrong. To Christians, hate is murder. See Matthew chapter 5, as well as "A murderer does not have God in his heart." Pretty self-evident to say hatred is not a virtue in Christianity.
The Dude - Very well put, you expanded well upon pixie's point. The crime is not only against the individual but against a larger group as well.
2007-11-12 06:02:35 · update #3
B00G1 - Excellent additions, I hope people read what you've written and understand the implications.
Skeptic - Your edit is appreciated and understood. I agree with your perspective, I was just asking for a reason why.
2007-11-12 07:51:12 · update #4
The reason is because a hate crime is also an act of terrorism.
If two men got in a fight and one killed the other and the other one just happened to be gay, that is just a murder.
If a man or group of people (like Neo-Nazis or Army of God) went around beating up and killing gay men, it is not only murder, it is terrorism. It is done with the intent to strike fear and threaten the well being of an ENTIRE group of people within in a community.
2007-11-12 05:46:05 · answer #1 · answered by pixie_pagan 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think the hate crimes legislation is a freaking joke. All it does is strike fear into anyone who does not agree with someone else enough so that they are afraid of saying anything.
If the legislation was for a good reason, I could understand. But this legislation was made almost exclusively to silence Christians and for that matter anyone who claims to have a true standard of morals. This legislation makes it a hate crime for pastors in their own church to read from the Bible about homosexuality. That sounds crazy, but it is true. This legislation has already caused several arrests of pastors in other countries.
A man in Canada was foung guilty when he refused to let a homosexual group advertise homosexual agenda in his own newspaper.
I would like to know how that is increasing freedom. All this junk does is give special rights to minorities so much that a sentence can be tripled if it is even thought to be with some sort of hateful intent. The last time I checked, the punishment for most crimes (especially violent ones) is quite severe. "Terrorists" as one poster puts it, don't care about the consiquences anyway, so this legislation does absolutely nothing but persecute people for disagreeing with liberal agenda. It is disguised as some sort of protection for races or sexes, but it is really just to give special protection to homosexuals. It is crap! The big problem is that liberals claim that homosexual tendancies are normal and natural, which classifies being homosexual with what sex you are. Most conservatives and all Christians (should) believe that homosexual tendancies are a perversion of God-given gifts and are immoral. That is the issue. We are now trying to erase any absolute moral from the minds of people so that they will just accept that there are no morals and we are all animals.
If you are protecting homosexuals more so than heterosexuals, then I think we should protect anyone who likes to have sex with children or animals too. This is a moral issue...not a civil issue. Homosexuality is a sin, just like murder, rape, and breaking the law.
2007-11-12 06:03:28 · answer #2 · answered by RedE1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pixie_pagan had it exactly right.
The origin is this: Groups like the KKK would drag a black man out into the town square to whip him, as a "warning" to the entire community. Under a traditional law, they could only be charged with assault and battery -- not even a felony, in most cases.
And yet, we all know there's a difference between getting in a bar fight and whipping someone to "warn" the city. Hate crime laws are meant to address that difference; they differentiate between crime that targets an individual, and crime that terrorizes a group of people (ie, terrorism).
2007-11-12 05:55:54 · answer #3 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Pixie and Dude have it pretty well nailed. RedE1 makes the latest valid point. The Supreme court has cited "international precedence" on several occasions now. It is reported Congress now has a bill coming through that makes any "speak" against homosexuals "hate speak". It will probably be a felony. Ergo one will not be able to say in public "Sodomites are going to hell unless they repent". Irregardless of the fact it is biblical it would be hate speak.
It is one thing to bash gays, burn crosses on lawns, paint swastikas on Jewish homes; and quite another to believe homosexuality is sin. I am not driven to violence by what I see as Christian belief in God, just motivated to pray for repentance and salvation.
Excellent ? by the way
2007-11-12 07:24:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Under Western law you willa ctually find that most crimes are defined in terms of intent. So theft is defined as unauthorised taking of possessions with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of them. Demonstrating intent is an important part of any criminal case.
Rightly in my view the law has taken the view that hate is itself questionable, and may in some cases on its own be a crime of intent. Acting on hate almost always is. Wanting money, on the other hand, is not considered a bad intent - but some ways of pursuing the intent are.
In effect, a hate crime is two crimes rolled into one neat and nasty bundle.
Christians have problems with this concept for two reasons. One, it is not biblical to view hate itself as a crime - indeed it is often a biblical virtue. The other is that they spend so much of their time hating some group or other.
2007-11-12 05:55:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
if you ask me all crimes are crimes of hate and should carry the same punishment.
and we'd better watch out, because they're working on making it a hate crime to even say that it's wrong to be homosexual.
Your preacher could soon be sitting in a jail cellnext to a murderer just for quoteing the bible.
2007-11-12 05:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Twila G 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What crime is not a hate crime? Or to put it another way, what crime can I commit against a person that is motivated by love?
2007-11-12 05:50:32 · answer #7 · answered by Craig R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you assault a person because of their race, you can do more time than usual. But if you murder someone over a drug debt, or during a robbery, the time sentenced is the same. Regardless of racial motives.
2007-11-12 05:50:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you saying that spray-painting squiggly lines on someones door should be the same as spray painting a swastika on the door of a Jew?
If you say yes, you have a very warped understanding of history and humanity.
EDIT: I was relying on the intelligence of the reader to understand how my reply was actually an answer to the question if you think about it. It was not directed at you per se. But to anyone who thinks the crimes are equal.
2007-11-12 05:52:29 · answer #9 · answered by skeptic 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i be attentive to of quite a few non-whites who're at present serving penitentiary sentences for hate crimes. even nonetheless, no regulation provies for the enhancement only based on the race of the defendant and the sufferer. incredibly, the prosecutor ought to teach that the reason for the crime develop into racial. that would not arise very lots. the single i'm thinking of in contact a guy who develop into utilising drugs and expressing his hatred for whites, and then introduced he develop into going to kill the subsequent white guy or woman he observed, and then he attacked the subsequent white guy or woman he observed. different than that form of evidence, maximum human beings might only get sentenced for the attack, devoid of the enhancement for the racial motivation.
2016-09-29 02:25:21 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋