Hate Crime

[RadkeLover]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/justic...html?hpt=ju_c2

hate crimes are disgusting, first we had the witch burnings, then the holocaust, then slavery, anti gays, christians, athiests, practically anti anything, when the hell will this end?!?!??

[Anthropomorphic]

It won't stop. There are always going to be people who hate other people based on factors that the victim(s) have little to no control over. It's a painfully unfortunate fact of life.

[Guile]

The concept of a "hate crime" is idiotic. Punish the act, not the motive. Not to mention, the use of "hate crime" legislation is typically one sided, often against white males. I don't think it should be a punishable offence, sure, punish him for assaulting a man, regardless if the man is black, white, asian, or whatever else someone can be.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I think the hate crime charge should be dropped. The murder (I assume first-degree) is the more serious crime and racism would be mentioned as the reason for the murder, so the charge of hate crime is redundant. The only reason I see for pursuing the hate crime charge is to get the jury and world all fired up and more willing to convict.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by Guile

The concept of a "hate crime" is idiotic. Punish the act, not the motive. Not to mention, the use of "hate crime" legislation is typically one sided, often against white males. I don't think it should be a punishable offence, sure, punish him for assaulting a man, regardless if the man is black, white, asian, or whatever else someone can be.

Without motive, then striving for what is "fair and just" with the incorpration of criminal law would be utterly pointless. (ie: manslaughter in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, etc.. Murder in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, etc...)

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Guile

The concept of a "hate crime" is idiotic. Punish the act, not the motive. Not to mention, the use of "hate crime" legislation is typically one sided, often against white males. I don't think it should be a punishable offence, sure, punish him for assaulting a man, regardless if the man is black, white, asian, or whatever else someone can be.

Agreed. I don't feel the concept of a hate crime is idiotic, but I agree we shouldn't worry about motives.

- Justin

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Agreed. I don't feel the concept of a hate crime is idiotic, but I agree we shouldn't worry about motives.

- Justin

If you don't want to worry about motives, then you have to redefine what constitutes a crime. Generally speaking, you need the actual incident (actus reus) as well as the motivation/mindset (mens rea) to be shown in court. For example, suppose George was driving his car down the road, drunk as a skunk and ran you over. If you ignore the motive, you cannot differentiate between involuntary manslaughter versus first-degree murder. Furthermore, suppose Kelly got into an ugly fist-fight with a gang of male teens. As she's getting beaten senseless, Danny heroically runs to her aid but in doing so, he takes on the entire gang in a fist-fight and wins. You could charge him for assault, however, you could just as easily acknowledge it was an act of self-defense done to save himself as well as another human being. Unfortunately, by ignoring the motive, Danny would likely be charged with assault and his heroic efforts would be ignored.

Guile isn't supporting your stance of ignoring motives for all crimes. Instead, he's saying scrap the charge of hate crime because it only addresses the motive/mens rea, hence, idiotic. If you agree with him, you'd say motives for other crimes are important, hence hate crime would be idiotic but you're not supporting that so I don't know what it is you claim to be agreeing with.