Do you think that laws supporting the fact that people commit crimes due to racism supports discrimination by drawing a line of what's right and wrong between races? Or sexual orientation, for that matter. For example, if a white guy punches a black guy, that's assumed a hate crime. But by saying it's a hate crime, is that just making racial differences more apparent? Please, I just want opinions as it has been on my mind lately. Be civil. Discuss.
Singling out a crime as a "hate crime" certainly makes the division between races more apparent. Its odd, because as much as law-makers think they are helping the situation, it seems as though they are actually exacerbating the problem by institutionalizing the differences (i.e. added weight for the crime of a white person punching a black person vs. the crime of a white person punching a white person). I believe they should stop passing the legislation for just that reason... it heightens the tension instead of alleviating it.
For a crime to be a hate crime, the attacker has to be racially against the victim. If a white man punches a black man, it is not a hate crime, but if a white man punches a black man and say (excuse my language) "you n****, you filthy ****" then yes, it would be a hate crime. But it is also the reverse. If a black man punches a white man, and uses racial insults, or says negative things about whites, then it would be a hate crime also. I do agree that classifying a crime as a hate crime would make racial divisions more apparant, but not the way you described it, you just described it as a "assault and battery" crime.
What if a black man punches another black man and says, "you n****, you filthy ****". Is it a hate crime? What if a black man punches a white man and says, "you n****, you filthy ****". Is that a hate crime? I've been called the n-word before and I'm white as a ghost. When does violence become more than violence? When does one distinguish what is done out of hate and what isn't and, for that matter, what isn't hateful about violence?
Well this topic was never about violence, although it may be a subtopic. It's about racism in general. I was just wondering if making laws to respect certain racial issues only makes us more bitter or more afraid of that particular person.
Very true. It is impossible to identify the true motive of any crime, though there can be speculation. Dividing crimes by their intent is just silly, crime is crime, period. It doesn't matter if it was fueled by hate or greed (talking about more general "crime" now) or anything else, it is still wrong and doesn't need to be subdivided.
All crimes are hate crimes. What makes one more hateful than the other? I'd bet almost any day that the guy who killed his wife's lover is more hateful than the guy who killed a black guy. Also pouring gasoline on to fire is a bad idea in my opinion, but that is apparently not what this thread is a about.
What if a white guy punches a black guy? I hate to answer Aristotle Method this thread, but seriously...
straight out of this source Now to the reference of "group" I take it to mean that it is any racial, political, ethical, or religious group. Now that we know exactly when a hate crime occurs, we can answer the questions. Nitrous- It becomes more than a violent act when the attacker selected the victim because they are in a certain group. For example, If a man were to go up to a dude and punch him only because he was Jewish, then it would be a hate crime. If the jury can find no other motivation to describe the attacker's action than hatred of what kind the person the victim was. Kratos- Yes, I do believe that you are right, but the government does subdivide crimes, so we will just have to live with it. The debate is about whether or not it makes racial separation more apparent. Diablo- Crimes are more hateful if the attacker commits the crime on the victim only because they are black or muslim or jewish or whatever. I would like to reiterate my use of the word ONLY Melt- i dont know.. what if?
What difference does it make if I punch someone out of illegitimate hatred rather than "legitimate"? The same damage is done. The guy gets a black eye regardless of whether he's black or white and I should get the same punishment regardless of whether or not I punched a guy because he gave me a funny look or because he was Jewish. All a hate crime law does is legitimizes violence by saying only a selection of violence is illegitimate and deserves extra punishment.
I don't agree that all crimes, are hate crimes. What if a crack head is feending out. He kills robs someone to steal the money to go buy more crack. How is that a hate crime?? I do think there should be special laws under certain circumstances. For example, a big story happended right near where I live. I group of white punks who hated mexicans, beat up a spanish guy. They beat him so bad, he died. Now the group of thugs are being tried for murder as a hate crime. With gang assualt as the murder charge. They are going to get what they deserve. It was clearly a hate crime. So we do need special laws for certain, extreme cases such as this. There is really no debate here.
O really? lets look at the thought process. Racist crime-- I hate those dirty mexicans/blacks/latins/whites! They should all die! *kills one* vs. Passion crime-- WHAT THE ****! My wife was cheating on me?! I'll kill that little bastard and that *****! *kills them* That example is full of hate. He hates not having crack. He hates the guy having money when he doesn't.etc. All violent crimes can be linked to hate because violence is the physical form of hate. What do they deserve? They deserve to be punished for killing a man, nothing more nothing less. It's because all violent crimes are done out of resentment. You resent that that guy has more money than you so you kill him and take his wallet. You resent that your wife cheated on you so you go to get even. You resent that that guy is a different color so you do something about it. All of these have the same motive, so why should one be held above the others?