PDA

View Full Version : Are "Hate Crimes" Beneficial or Unethical?



Deary
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Please explain why you believe hate crimes to be beneficial to society or unethical, what should and should not qualify has a hate crime (if anything), reasons against or in support of the need to distinguish hate crimes separate from other crimes, and whether or not hate crimes violate individual rights.

Ĉmeric
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 10:49 PM
I do not believe in hate crime laws. Why should a crime be treated more seriously because of racial motivation? The reality is hate crime statutes are used to punish Whites more severely for crimes committed against non-Whites, then when the same crime is committed against a White person by a non-White. Though Whites are not specifically excluded from protection from racially motivated crimes these laws are nearly always used to prosecute in cases where the victim is non-White or gay/bisexual/transexual. This in spite of the fact Whites are much more likely to be vicitms of violent crime committed by Negroes or Hispanics - both proportionately & in actual numbers. Hate crimes legislation is used to applease the special protected groups that usually support the Democratic Party. In essence, hate crime laws are anti-White.

Hate crime charges were not brought in the Wichita Massacre or in the pending case know as the Knoxville Masscre. There is also the case of the racially motivated assault & battery on Justin Barker by 6 Negro teens on Dec, 04, 2006, in Jena, La. No hate crimes have been filed in that case though the defendents are facing felony charges. But the case has spawned controversy with Negro leaders & congressmen outraged that the Negro thugs are being persecuted at all, while at the same time demanding hate crime charges be brought against 3 White teens for hanging a noose from a tree. This is a prime example of how hate crime laws are applied in the US.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 12:28 AM
Yeah, it seems the main result of 'hate crimes' legislation has been to make petty crimes like bar fights and vandalism into major offenses in certain special instances.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 07:16 AM
Since Roman times that one minority group has sought special favors and special laws. They have sometimes gotten them. Hate crimes are just their latest creation.

Cuchulain
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 07:02 PM
What do you think about laws that call for more severe punishments (in comparison with similar offences) for crimes that are motivated by racial/cultural animosity?

I think that similar crimes ought to have similar punishments, regardless of what they were motivated by. I think people have the right to think or believe whatever they want, and that the harm occurs when they lose control and of their behavior, and so it is only the behavior which should be taken into account when prescribing the appropriate punishment for a crime. Laws are meant to control behavior anyway, not thought. The government is effectively trying to control thoughts with hate crime laws, which I think falls outside the bounds of what they ought to be doing and is creepy.

Gefjon
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 07:50 PM
The Hatefulness of Hate Crime Laws

By John "Birdman" Bryant

In her article "Hate crime laws don't infringe on the First Amendment" (St Petersburg (FL) Times, 27 Mar 93: 18A), ACLU president Nadine Strossen correctly argues against Nat Hentoff's contention that laws against so- called hate crimes violate the free-speech protections of the First Amendment. The point which Ms Strossen makes is that terms of denigration uttered during the commission of a crime may show motive, and motive has long been recognized as a basis upon which to judge the seriousness of the crime, as is demonstrated by the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter (accidental killing); and thus penalties for hate crimes are not penalties against speech, but penalties against motive. But while Ms Strossen is correct in this narrow respect, she misses a much larger point which I believe was implicit in Hentoff's argument, namely, that laws against hate crimes are really laws against thought crimes. To understand what is at issue here, consider the difference between murder and manslaughter: In both cases society penalizes an act -- human killing -- but the penalty for manslaughter is lighter since it is deemed to be an act of carelessness or neglect, rather than something done deliberately, as is murder. Or to put it another way, murder is penalized more severely because it is under voluntary control, whereas manslaughter is penalized less severely because we reckon it to be either involuntary or else to have only a small component of volition, namely, the volition involved in being careful and alert. This comparison is in stark contrast to the difference between an ordinary crime and a hate crime, however; for both these acts are voluntary. The point may perhaps be expressed more clearly by comparing two cases of robbery, the primary motive of the first being money, and the primary motive of the second being racial hatred. What we want to ask is, Why should the second robbery be penalized more than the first?, ie, Why should one bad motive (racial hatred) be penalized more than another (greed)? Indeed, there are some people -- black politician Jesse Jackson, for example, or Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan -- who evidently believe that racial hatred is good; so if you agree with such people, then why penalize the act at all? Indeed, such an ancient moral tableau as the Ten Commandments forbids greed (Thou shall not steal; thou shalt not covet) but is lacking any command to love those of another race, or even to love one's neighbor.

What we have said so far is that it is reasonable to penalize a crime that has a bad motive, and it is for this reason that we penalize murder -- which has a bad motive -- more heavily than manslaughter, which has no motive at all. But it is not reasonable to penalize an act with a bad motive more heavily than the same act with a different bad motive, just because the first is a racial motive and the second is a financial one; and yet this is precisely what is done by hate crime laws. Or to put it another way, hate crime laws not only punish criminal acts, but in addition they punish thought crimes, and it is this, I believe, to which Hentoff is objecting.

But there is a deeper objection to hate crime laws which neither Strossen nor Hentoff addresses, namely, that such laws are highly discriminatory. To be specific, such laws favor certain classes of people over other classes, ie, they favor blacks, Indians, Asians, Jews, homosexuals, women and sometimes others, but omit all sorts of other classes who are continually discriminated against -- the old, the fat, the short, the poor, the homeless, the stupid, the incompetent, the odoriferous, criminals, drunkards, atheists, nose-pickers, lawyers, usurers, politicians, communists, Nazis, gun-owners, and an almost infinite number of other classes. Or in short, if you seek to "prevent discrimination" by protecting certain classes, then of necessity you are discriminating in your "non-discrimination" by protecting some groups and not others -- hardly a case of equal protection of the laws.

The bottom line is this: We all discriminate. We discriminate against what we think is bad and in favor of what we think is good. And it is high time the government stop telling us what sort of discrimination we should practice.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbl/Lbl-HateCrime.html

Oski
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 08:20 PM
I've been accused and arrested for "hate crimes" several times.

I'm just a hard working family man that knows how to defend myself was my only defense in court. It worked in front of white judges. Not so much in front of mexican-american judges :mad:.

Patrioten
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 09:16 PM
I am against hate crime laws. Minorities don't deserve to be better protected against criminals than the majority, nor do minority criminals deserve to get softer punishments for crimes commited against majority victims. The same crime should lead to the same punishment (ideally), regardless of who is the victim and who is the criminal.

If I had my way, some acts which are now considered crimes, being vocally critical or even vulgar against minority groups, would be decriminalized since such a law makes freedom of speech a joke, where tolerance is shown towards socialist or liberal views while the law and courts are biased against conservative or nationalist such. We already have laws against making threats or encouraging criminal acts, minority groups already have such protection, as do the rest of us.

On the other hand, violent crimes would be punished alot harsher, and the law would not make a distinction between native or foreigner, they would all be dealt with in the same way. I think that that is a reasonable way to go about things.

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 12:19 AM
Not that I disagree with being against hate crime laws, but how would you feel if it was a hate crime against you? How would you label it? Feel about it?

Cuchulain
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 12:30 AM
Not that I disagree with being against hate crime laws, but how would you feel if it was a hate crime against you? How would you label it? Feel about it?

I might be more personally offended, but I don't think that human emotion is usually a good premise to base laws off of.

Patrioten
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 01:54 AM
Not that I disagree with being against hate crime laws, but how would you feel if it was a hate crime against you? How would you label it? Feel about it?I have been threatened and called ethnic slurs in the past due to my ethnicity, it made me a bit less tolerant of their kind and made me feel as though they had overextended their stay in my country. I would label it as racism. We already have laws that cover threats, but it's not like you're going to charge someone for making a threat, our justice system barely convicts murderers and rapists as it is, let alone people making threats.

Crimson Guard
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:14 AM
Hate Crimes shouldnt even exist. They tend to be redundant and hypocritical, with only favoring non-Whites. Its just an added attraction. So instead of assault, they charge you racially motivated or whatever it is. Either way your getting charged for the same crime, so the law already exists.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:17 AM
I don't think hate crime laws are beneficial to society. A crime is a crime and a criminal must pay for the crime, regardless of race. I wouldn't feel any better if I was attacked by a white person than by a gypsy or black just because we have the same race.

Birka
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:36 AM
A good question to ask is: are we free to hate as well as love here in America?

If we are not allowed to hate, then we have de facto, thought police judigin our thoughts. If a man hurt my child, I will hate him. Is this government going to jail me because I hate him. If he were a minority, I would not be allowed to hate him.

PS....anyone hurting my children better be found by the police before me.

CrystalRose
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:54 AM
I agree with the majority of the posts in this thread. It's a law used to favor non-whites. It's another way to hang guilt over our heads because of the past.

Loddfafner
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:58 AM
A good question to ask is: are we free to hate as well as love here in America?

If we are not allowed to hate, then we have de facto, thought police judigin our thoughts.


This is exactly why I oppose hate crimes laws as well as sodomy (or anti-homosexual) laws: both are equally about government regulation of human emotion.

Also, in America prison sentences are already absurdly long but with hate crime augmentation, a person could spend far longer in prison for using a few slurs in a fight than for murder or rape.

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, October 1st, 2008, 02:52 PM
A person should be judged and sentenced on the crimes they have committed, not on their motivations for committing them. A man who beats another man up for having the wrong haircut, is committing no less of a crime than a man who beats someone up for speaking a different language, so why should his sentence be any shorter?

Elgar
Wednesday, October 1st, 2008, 03:05 PM
A person should be judged and sentenced on the crimes they have committed, not on their motivations for committing them. A man who beats another man up for having the wrong haircut, is committing no less of a crime than a man who beats someone up for speaking a different language, so why should his sentence be any shorter?

I completely agree with you!

The fact is though, different ´communities´ protect their own, and when one of ´theirs´ is attacked, it can lead to retaliatory violence and even rioting. Just listen to this asian´s comments 29 seconds into this video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j_L-19mzimw

Tribalism is natural amongst human beings, and the fact that sentencing is more sever for ´hate crimes´ is an admission by the authorities that they acknowledge this is the case and a way of trying to prevent race riots. I can see little other reason or justification for it.

Galloglaich
Wednesday, October 1st, 2008, 03:27 PM
Hate crime = thought crime. The legal system should only punish actions, not thoughts. Besides, hate crime actually devalues human life. If someone murders me and receives "x" amount of years, and someone else kills a black or homosexual and receives "x+5" years, the net result is that my life has been devalued legally.

Elgar
Wednesday, October 1st, 2008, 03:41 PM
Hate crime = thought crime. The legal system should only punish actions, not thoughts. Besides, hate crime actually devalues human life. If someone murders me and receives "x" amount of years, and someone else kills a black or homosexual and receives "x+5" years, the net result is that my life has been devalued legally.

Yes, the fact that your murder isn´t deemed to be a "hate crime", implies it wasn´t motivated by hate. It must have been one of those "I really love you" murders...