• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Hate Crime Enhancements Used Equitably in the USA?

ChrisL said:
So what you are saying that there has to be an INTENT to scare a certain segment of the population, but whether a person's actually DO scare a certain segment of the population is really NOT taken into account, such as in the case of the serial rapist.
Click to expand...

No. The motive must be, exclusively, to strike fear into the target population, regarding which the offender must have membership or material that targets the victim.

I agree that in certain instances it might be appropriate, such as a KKK lynching or something to that effect, but I believe I've heard it applied (or tried to be applied) in other situations where the "intent" might not be so clear.
Click to expand...

Read the laws. Basing ones opinion on the worst of the attempts to prosecute is not to understand the law.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole notion of labeling crimes as hate crimes is rather silly at best. If I assault, kill, or maim someone so that I can steal their wallet or if I assault, kill, or maim someone because I dislike them due to a prejudice, the victim was still equally assaulted, killed, or maimed. Besides how many violent crimes are committed out of love exactly?
 
ecofarm said:
No. The motive must be, exclusively, to strike fear into the target population, regarding which the offender must have membership or material that targets the victim.
Click to expand...

Well I never thought of hate crime legislation as "anti-terrorism" laws before, but if you say so.
 
Baralis said:
I think the whole notion of labeling crimes as hate crimes is rather silly at best. If I assault, kill, or maim someone so that I can steal their wallet or if I assault, kill, or maim someone because I dislike them due to a prejudice, the victim was still equally assaulted, killed, or maimed. Besides how many violent crimes are committed out of love exactly?
Click to expand...

So the Boston bombers should only be charged with regular murder and not terrorism?
 
captainawesome said:
So the Boston bombers should only be charged with regular murder and not terrorism?
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why it should be different then any other murders. A sum should not be greater then its parts.
 
ChrisL said:
Well I never thought of hate crime legislation as "anti-terrorism" laws before, but if you say so.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying, read the laws. Judge them according to what they require. Don't judge the laws according to what someone said about a case that might not have gone forward as such or failed. There are always bad examples of prosecution. Using them to attack just law is unbecoming.
 
Baralis said:
I think the whole notion of labeling crimes as hate crimes is rather silly at best. If I assault, kill, or maim someone so that I can steal their wallet or if I assault, kill, or maim someone because I dislike them due to a prejudice, the victim was still equally assaulted, killed, or maimed. Besides how many violent crimes are committed out of love exactly?
Click to expand...

The difference is the target and the motive. Hate crimes target groups and are encouraged by groups. It's basically terrorism.
 
Baralis said:
I don't see any reason why it should be different then any other murders. A sum should not be greater then its parts.
Click to expand...

Well we should just have mandatory charges and sentences. We dont need juries and judges as life is black and white, and things like motive and intent are irrelevant. We have been doing it wrong for thousands of years in taking the specific facts of a particular case into consideration when charging and sentencing.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm just saying, read the laws. Judge them according to what they require. Don't judge the laws according to what someone said about a case that might not have gone forward as such or failed. There are always bad examples of prosecution. Using them to attack just law is unbecoming.
Click to expand...

I don't have time right now. I will look into examples of case law regarding hate crimes later though.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have time right now. I will look into examples of case law regarding hate crimes later though.
Click to expand...

The statutes themselves are just a few paragraphs. Some (all?) states supplement the federal requirements with another couple paragraphs. It's plain enough language and the standards are clear.

As I noted, there have been successful hate crime prosecutions with white male victims.
 
ecofarm said:
The difference is the target and the motive. Hate crimes target groups and are encouraged by groups. It's basically terrorism.
Click to expand...

No it basically is not.....
 
Fisher said:
No it basically is not.....
Click to expand...

Yes it is, there are two main requirements:

1. Motive is only to strike fear in the targeted group.
2. The perp has membership or propaganda from a recognized hate group, which targets the victim.

That's terrorism, organized.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes it is, there are two main requirements:

1. Motive is only to strike fear in the targeted group.
2. The perp has membership or propaganda from a recognized hate group, which targets the victim.

That's terrorism, organized.
Click to expand...

Nope

captainawesome said:
So killing someone to create fear in a group is not terrorism?

Seems that is exactly whay terrorists do.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
ecofarm said:
The difference is the target and the motive. Hate crimes target groups and are encouraged by groups. It's basically terrorism.
Click to expand...


I dont know, perhaps I just view things differently then what is typical. I hold no grudges even against people that have harmed me in some way. I personally have no interest is seeing people harmed be that jailed, executed, or otherwise. What I would rather see is people learn from their actions and understand the damage and hurt they have caused others and decide for themselves that it was not right. Now I understand that some people need to be locked away for the safety of others and many will never change their outlook but to punish people just to punish people seems rather pointless to me. If they have changed their views and no longer wish to harm anyone what is achieved by punishing them further? Nothing in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom