Violent crime or hate crime?

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
WEST HOLLYWOOD, California (CNN) -- Police have arrested three men in connection with at least one attack with a baseball bat on a member of West Hollywood's gay community last month, the West Hollywood Sheriff's Department announced Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's both. What needs to be focused on, however, is not the hate part of the crime. Some may disagree, but full punishment for the violence would be preferable to some half-assed punishment for the hate (i.e. lawsuits et al). If they can be linked to the other crimes, so much the better.
 
All violent crimes are hate crimes. We have so many laws & only need a few, enforced.
 
the reasons for the crime should not take part, the crime is still there, if he/she is guilty it should be punished.
 
true, but premeditated crimes against individuals because of who/what they are should be dealt with more firmly than 'random' crime.
 
i agree. people who attack because of something like this should get a stiff penalty but i dont think any more than a random crime unless its a continuous thing. if they constantly do it then yes give them a harsher punishemt. if not then give them a good one.
 
ris said:
true, but premeditated crimes against individuals because of who/what they are should be dealt with more firmly than 'random' crime.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Now we're getting onto the "slippery slope" which could easily be extended to blessing the idea of thought police. With damned few exceptions (self defense leaps to mind), a crime is a crime. I don't give a damn what the motivation was. Punishment should be even-handed, harsh, and immediately forthcoming.
 
HomeLAN said:
With damned few exceptions (self defense leaps to mind), a crime is a crime. I don't give a damn what the motivation was. Punishment should be even-handed, harsh, and immediately forthcoming.
Click to expand...

:headbang:
 
i'm not so sure still, removing the motivation of the crime to a degree devalues it. racist taunts become a bit of shouting, scrawling 'paki out' is just grafitti.

the crime is the crime, i wholeheartedly agree, and that the punishment should be swift and harsh for the worst crimes. but to deny the motivation behind them in explicit racial cases could be seen as saying murder is bad, but the racism and intimidation that has come with it is merely a sideshow and is to be ignored.
 
if you are going to allow more severe punishments because of the "motivation" that could be also good, but if you do it for more severe punishment you will have to do "less" punishment as well.

double sharp blade.
 
Again, I think you're flirting with making opinions illegal. You can be a racist all you want, but it doesn't (and IMO, shouldn't) make you a criminal. You don't become a criminal unless you COMMIT A CRIME.

Admittedly, racism is a scourge which should be wiped from the earth. But, that's MY opinion. If I value the right to hold that opinion, I must value the rights of those who disagree with me to hold theirs. The moment we write laws which provide penaties for motivations, we infringe on those rights.
 
good point, i suppose it comes down to what is the 'base' for the individual crime against which any 'excess' can be applied
 
[off-topic]
for the record, first time ris and Luis G disagree "partially" ;)
[/off-topic]
 
racism as a belief is not illegal, but the action of racism is, and is covered by law. aren't two crimes therefore being commited?
 
ris said:
we do? :eek: [partially]
Click to expand...

yeah, on the part of the "reasons" ;)

btw, is "the action" of racism a crime in the UK? (it certainly isn't in here, also what do you mean with "the action" ??).
 
i suppose that what i mean is a tricky thing and is in someway connected to the debate.

using race to discriminate is obviously a crime, but i would love to see a murderer put in the dock again for not being equal, somehow that takes pc too far ;)

i know what homelan is driving at, that personal belief should not be a factor under the icy-eye of justice, where the crime and only the crime are judged. and a large part of me agrees with that. in fact the greater part of me does.

but i hate racism so much that the idea that it can be ignored, the actions of bigots reduced to nothing makes me sad. i suppose that almost anything can be deemed a belief. as a society we place unlawful killing as somehting beyond any reasonable belief. i think i am looking for a similar placing of racism as extremely socially unacceptable.

i'm probably a bit media-misguided, not using a cold-justice eye on this is most likely a product of journalism written to inflame, shock and sicken for some crimes.
 
ohhhh yeah, i hate racism, although, i don't believe racism should be a crime, [yank on]since that will take away your freedom of thought[/yank off]. It can be considered amoral or non-ethical, but it is a right of the persons to be whatever they want and believe whatever they want.

thesis: racism = stupidity
The solution to racism is in education, racism is an stupidity by itself, the idea of thinking about being superior bases solely on race is just plain stupid. More education to remove those ideals is the only way to solve it.
 
indeed, i suppose what i want, if anything [and in my probly misguided way], is those who use racism as the reason for their crimes to been in public for what they are. education through shame if you will.

as correctly said by homelan and others, this probly has no place in cold-justice. part of me wonders how cold our justice is though, with the muddied words of lawyers and emotional attahments placed on cases in media and court-rooms.
 
ris said:
but i hate racism so much that the idea that it can be ignored, the actions of bigots reduced to nothing makes me sad. i suppose that almost anything can be deemed a belief. as a society we place unlawful killing as somehting beyond any reasonable belief. i think i am looking for a similar placing of racism as extremely socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. What is next to be elevated to that status, and who decides it?

Luis, I'm going to be nice and assume you meant yank to be short for yankee. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top