My state, Wyoming, does not. And we are not a "backwards, hick, intolerant" state. Far from it. We are the kind of people that are "Live and let live, so long as you don't shove your beliefs in our faces, if you do, we hit you in the face."
2007-12-11 02:22:26 · 17 answers · asked by Chase 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Matthew Shephard was never lynched. He was beaten and left on a fence post, and he later died in the hospital. That story recieved national coverage, but none of the other crimes that happened at the same time did. A 15 year old pregnant girl killed because she refused to get an abortion and a 9 year old girl that was killed by a pedo both happened at the same time as this.
2007-12-11 02:30:44 · update #1
travolta, murder is murder, pure and simple. If someone kills another in cold blood, then that person hated the person they killed, not much point in trying to make laws up that make it seem that a minorities life is worth more then a white guy's life. Their lives are equal.
2007-12-11 02:40:31 · update #2
Given, you are putting words into my mouth. I could care less if someone was gay, black, whatever. But the matter of the thing is, all crimes are hate crimes in one aspect or another. Frankly, if this country is supposed to have equal oppertunity for all, then why make crimes done against minorities worse then others? I'm a person, so is that Mecican guy, or that gay person over there. So, why should they have more rights then others?
As for the Matthew Shephard thing, letting people, or telling people they are gay, bi, whatever, is one thing. And I don't have a problem with that, as many in my state do not. But, for instance, trying to impose laws that are not needed is quite another. Which many OUT OF STATE activists tried to enforce on us during that time. That pisses us off to no extent. Especially when other murders took place that were just as grizzly. Only difference was that Matthew Shephard was gay.
2007-12-12 04:16:54 · update #3
As soon as more states become blue states, we will see more hate crime laws passed in all 50 states.
2007-12-11 02:34:16 · answer #1 · answered by Michael M 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Other crimes happen, and are not reported nationally, but that doesn't mean hate crime enhancements are unnecessary or undesirable. Yes, I think they are a good idea. If someone is beaten or murdered just because he's gay, or black or whatever, the punishment should be higher. The laws are very specific and require proof of intent in the form of an action such as a group of guys state they are going out to beat and rob gays. Mind reading isn't involved any more than it's mind reading to have different degrees of murder based on intent and planning. Because such crimes are in cold blood and planned, having a higher penalty can be a deterrent.
2007-12-11 02:54:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think all hate crime legislation is bogus. A crime is a crime...or it isn't. "Hate crimes" are trying you on your "thoughts". That is going down a very slippery slope, when your thoughts can get you in jail. You should be tried on your actions only. Plus I've never gotten the concept that one type of violent crime is more "hateful" than another. I mean, by it's very nature, the types of crime that hate crimes are applied to are very hate-filled acts regardless of who is doing it. How could you NOT hate someone you murder or beat up?
Trovolta...I understand what you are saying, but again the point is that the circumstances drive the sentence, i.e., premeditated murder versus manslaughter. Within the context of the circumstance, the crime should be defined by the action, not the "thought." I know the Supreme Court has upheld hate crime legislation, but I still think it is a bogus concept and would never have existed in a less "PC" environment.
2007-12-11 02:29:02 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Crime is crime period.
To consider any crime loving or moderately affectionate compared to other crimes is ridiculous.
Besides doesn't 'hate crime' only apply to whites as the perpetrators and not the victims?
To the best of my knowledge if a white person is murdered by a minority it's just plain old fashioned murder but if a minority is murdered by a white person then it's a hate crime.
So in my opinion hate crime is especially hateful towards whites and is designed to target us while everyone else gets away with murder.
This world is becoming crazier everyday and it wouldn't surprise me if one day it becomes socially acceptable to condone violence against whites because we aren't viewed as having the same amount of 'self worth' as everyone else because we're placed into a category separate from the rest of society and the laws that apply to us tells everyone else that they are above us and are within their rights to seek justice by making us suffer for everyones problems simply because we're white and the laws that protect them don't protect us.
2007-12-11 04:03:44 · answer #4 · answered by Adelaide B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
perfect,
Hate crimes also apply to minorities. That is a fact. Look up the FBI website.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#race
================
kathy,
People already get punished differently based on intent. Killing in the name of self-defense, involuntary manslaughter (drinking and driving accident), killing in the heat of the moment (father kills person who raped his daughter), or in pre-meditated murder will result in different or no punishments.
Hate crimes are punished more severely as a message to society that violence based on race is not to be tolerated. That kind of stuff can push entire races against other races.
Take for example the mess between the shia and shiites in Iraq.
Also, the Supreme Court has held that hate crime laws ARE constitutional.
2007-12-11 02:28:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No states should have "Hate Crime" laws. It is just stupid. Is a person less dead if they were killed by a loving murderer?
What needs to be done is to uniformly apply the legal punishment for the crime committed. No more "my father took my trike away when I was four years old and that is why I shot 40 people in a school" defenses.
2007-12-11 02:30:16 · answer #6 · answered by ML 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I have to agree with the majority of posters here on this one. Just because the supreme court said it's constitutional doesn't make it so. They've been legislating from the bench for years -- just look at their ruling on imminent domain! Hate crimes? Most crime is committed either due to desparation or because of hate (to some degree or another). It's a discriminatory law that targets a given gender and race. It is wrong. There should be no sacred cows here.
2007-12-11 02:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hate crime laws are one of the worst things to happen to this country ever. Hate crime laws extend someones punishment because of their thoughts, and no matter how heinous the thoughts are, we have a right to think anything we want. If someone hates blacks, or jews or gypsies or midgets, that doesn't matter, hating them alone is not a crime. And if hating someone is not a crime, then killing someone because you hate them based on race, should in no way be punished more than someone who gets killed for any other reason. Hate crime laws are the first step in the government trying to punish us for our thoughts.
2007-12-11 02:39:00 · answer #8 · answered by benni 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Politically incorrect dermis pigmentation. on the comparable evening that Troy Davis exchange into completed, between the accused murders of James Byrd exchange into completed. NO protests. Byrd, a black guy, exchange into murdered by potential of three white adult men, who dragged him to his loss of life in the back of a pickup truck. we've had the James Byrd homicide shoved down the throat of each and every white individual in united statesa. because of the fact we are all criminal racists in accordance to the left-wing press. yet that isn't any longer the only tale from Jasper, Texas. Over 3 years later, yet another "hate" killing that interestingly wasn't one in accordance to the click exchange into Ken Tillery. to quote, "a white guy named Ken Tillery, hitched a experience in Jasper, Texas. He exchange into given a advance by potential of three black adult men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery exchange into held hostage and overwhelmed. Then he exchange into run over and overwhelmed to loss of life. The copycat nature of the crime made it a organic information tale. yet there exchange into none, shop a modest account interior the Houston Chronicle, to which no person paid any interest. This savagery exchange into interestingly no longer something. The pigments have been politically incorrect. It exchange into in user-friendly terms some white guy, whose ancestors probable owned slaves."
2016-10-11 01:30:00 · answer #9 · answered by favaron 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hate crime laws are, IMO, unconstitutional. They are a form of thought control and a violation of the basic right in this country to think like a complete, flaming ******. True freedom allows this.
It is not the thought, but the BEHAVIOR that government should concern itself with. Murder is murder, regardless of why it is committed.
2007-12-11 02:33:05 · answer #10 · answered by cornbread_oracle 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋