• 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!

Hate crime advocates?

T

traillius

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You want maximum penalty for hate crimes. My solution:make all violent criminal acts carry the maximum penalty. then, you would automatically get the max penalty, without the burden of proof on the prosecution. Instant hate crimes, you could just add the title, and the max penalty would already be there.
 
"Hate crime" is a legal fiction, and a dangerous one at that.

There are no "hate crimes." There are (and should be) merely crimes. Adjudicating one motive for crime to be more abhorrent than another is a thinly veiled bigotry that perverts the just and equal application of the law that is the standard in this country.
 
If "hate crimes", then also "greed" crimes, "jealousy" crimes, etc... This can lead to absurdity. Either all possible motives should be prosecuted equally, or motive should be irrelevant in prosecution.
 
traillius said:
You want maximum penalty for hate crimes. My solution:make all violent criminal acts carry the maximum penalty. then, you would automatically get the max penalty, without the burden of proof on the prosecution. Instant hate crimes, you could just add the title, and the max penalty would already be there.
Click to expand...
Violent acts should be the most harshly punished, but those crimes that involve betraying the public trust should be a close second. And I favor letting the money changers and politicians and religious tyrants serve their time in the same open yards as violent criminals...
 
Hate crimes are stupid, almost as stupid as automatic sentencing.
 
The problem with the term "hate crime" is that with all of the politically correct assholes in todays world, any time a person of one skin color attacks a person of another skin color, it's a hate crime.

If a straight person attacks a gay person, it's a hate crime.

The funny thing is, do you not hate a person that you are beating? At least enough to want to beat them?

Their reasoning for labeling something a hate crime is nothing but the continuation of segregation. It's disgusting really.
 
Shewter said:
The problem with the term "hate crime" is that with all of the politically correct assholes in todays world, any time a person of one skin color attacks a person of another skin color, it's a hate crime.

If a straight person attacks a gay person, it's a hate crime.

The funny thing is, do you not hate a person that you are beating? At least enough to want to beat them?

Their reasoning for labeling something a hate crime is nothing but the continuation of segregation. It's disgusting really.
Click to expand...

Let me correct this post.....

"The problem with the term "hate crime" is that with all of the politically correct assholes in today's world, any time a white person attacks a person of another skin color, it's a hate crime."



there... fixed.
 
Caine said:
Let me correct this post.....

"The problem with the term "hate crime" is that with all of the politically correct assholes in today's world, any time a white person attacks a person of another skin color, it's a hate crime."



there... fixed.
Click to expand...

I was trying to leave room... But essentially, yes.
 
Hate crime laws are bad for many reasons, the first being that it puts some citizens above other citizens simply due to a single trait. That can have the exact opposite affect on the group of people that the law was intended to have. It would most likely build resentment toward the people it is meant to protect.

Second, we already have laws that protect every citizen from violence. If those laws are not being applied enough to bring protection to all citizens, then that is a problem with the system and it should be fixed there.

Also, it seems to me that in order to be a hate crime, there would have to be some evidence of that, such as use of a derogatory word (spoken or otherwise). That would lead to issues of Free Speech. The act of violence is already punishable under current law, so the only difference with hate crimes is the speech.

The actual act of violence should be punished, not the reason for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom