Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:03 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hate Crime Legislation
#1
Hate Crime Legislation
What are people's thoughts and positions on hate crime legislation. Personally I'm kind of undecided so I'm curious to see the argument.

I recognize that when a hate crime happens it can spur other hate crimes whether in opposition or support for the original crime, and that it does in some way represent a dehumanization of sorts.

But at the same time, Hate Crimes are essentially a way of tacking on a thought crime to an established crime. If someone is say stabbed (with intent to murder but the person survived) whether for money or for being black, if found guilty according to the court of law that person will suffer the appropriate punishment for their action. Hate crimes essentially tack on thought crime, where the motivation was a thought of prejudice and because you had that thought, it's more wrong and you get a more severe punishment. Too me, it doesn't necessarily seem right. Legislating thoughts is I think a bad place to ever go. It's too close to the idea of sin, which I think most of here agree sin is absurd.

We protect a person's right to hate, just not to act on those hates. So if a person acts on that hate, why should we then take into consideration that person's hate as a reason for more severe punishment when before that hate is acted on it's okay?

This issue is important to me because I support LGBT rights, and agree with their agenda almost 100%, but hate crimes is where I'm not sure I agree and I would like some input. I actually used to support their stance on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard">Matthew Shepard Act</a> but I've heard some arguments that give me pause. I realize that if I support the Matthew Shepard Act I would essentially support all hate crime legislation, and I'm not sure that I do. :/
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#2
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
I would have to say I am agreeing with your position and I recognize the difficulty that might come with passing the Matthew Shepard act. I also think it is pretty hard to prove a crime as a hate crime.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#3
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
My problem with this kind of legislation is that it typically isn't (or doesn't appear to be) the non-believers who practice "hate crime" and that it is difficult to see where freedom of speech ends and "hate crime" begins.

Maybe someone could clarify this?

Kyu
Reply
#4
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
In general, a hate crime refers to a crime spurred by hatred related to religion, race, gender, religion, etc... as explained in the Wikipedia entry I linked in the first post.

Depending on the reasons, an atheist COULD commit a hate crime. Hate crime specifically refers to an actual crime that's been committed, so it seems like you can speak your hatred, but when you act on it it becomes a hate crime.

Of course there's also Hate speech, which is controversial as well.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#5
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
I don't like the idea. It's illegal to kill someone, and it's illegal to punch someone. It shouldn't make one lick of difference what someone was thinking when they did it. Why isn't the opposite true? Why don't fathers who beat their children out of love get less harsh punishments?

This is something that doesn't belong in legislation. There's a reason we have judges. If someone assaulted someone because they were drunk and at a rowdy party, it's completely different from someone assaulting someone else because they are black. A judge can recognize this, and sentence someone accordingly.
Reply
#6
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
(January 4, 2009 at 12:22 am)Meatball Wrote: This is something that doesn't belong in legislation. There's a reason we have judges. If someone assaulted someone because they were drunk and at a rowdy party, it's completely different from someone assaulting someone else because they are black. A judge can recognize this, and sentence someone accordingly.

I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't the judge choosing a more harsh sentiment for the black being punched over the drunk being punched be exactly what hate crime legislation is for?

Then again, there is sort of a maximum and minimum judgement for punishment, and I think hate crime legislation would either require the maximum or tack on more punishment for the guy who punched the black.

Either way someone is still making a judgement call on the motivation of a crime, in essence the thought behind it, and giving you a punishment for it.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#7
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
(January 3, 2009 at 10:49 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: In general, a hate crime refers to a crime spurred by hatred related to religion, race, gender, religion, etc... as explained in the Wikipedia entry I linked in the first post.

That doesn't really clarify what I asked which was where does freedom of speech end and "hate crime" begin? How does one make the distinction?

Kyu
Reply
#8
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
(January 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Either way someone is still making a judgement call on the motivation of a crime, in essence the thought behind it, and giving you a punishment for it.
A judge's job to to sentence someone to a punishment appropriate to the crime committed. If someone punched another person because he's black, that person is obviously going to be at a greater risk to reoffend.

If someone is in a drunken bar fight, a judge can see that alcohol was a big part of the crime, and the person is at less of a risk to reoffend. He can give him a lesser sentence.

In a way, it's getting at the same idea, but in my opinion one thing society doesn't need is putting things like these on paper in our lawbooks. Let the judges do their jobs.
Reply
#9
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
(January 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: That doesn't really clarify what I asked which was where does freedom of speech end and "hate crime" begin? How does one make the distinction?

Kyu

The distinction is the actual crime. Hate speech is actually not illegal in the US thanks to the first amendment. As long as you're just talking, it's freedom of speech. A hate crime is when an action is taken that is illegal (assault, murder) and is spurred by prejudice. Does that clarify it?
(January 4, 2009 at 7:27 pm)Meatball Wrote: A judge's job to to sentence someone to a punishment appropriate to the crime committed. If someone punched another person because he's black, that person is obviously going to be at a greater risk to reoffend.

If someone is in a drunken bar fight, a judge can see that alcohol was a big part of the crime, and the person is at less of a risk to reoffend. He can give him a lesser sentence.

In a way, it's getting at the same idea, but in my opinion one thing society doesn't need is putting things like these on paper in our lawbooks. Let the judges do their jobs.

I get what you're saying, the Judge is there to make a judgment call on how bad the offense is and either give the maximum, medium, or minimum sentence based on that judgment call, and because of that hate crime legislation isn't even needed. Makes sense in a perfect world. Tongue
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#10
RE: Hate Crime Legislation
(January 4, 2009 at 10:59 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: The distinction is the actual crime. Hate speech is actually not illegal in the US thanks to the first amendment. As long as you're just talking, it's freedom of speech. A hate crime is when an action is taken that is illegal (assault, murder) and is spurred by prejudice. Does that clarify it?

Not really ... aren't those things already illegal?

Kyu
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  You think people who hate Queen Elizabeth 2 is same reason MAGA people hated Obama Woah0 13 1199 December 20, 2022 at 3:55 pm
Last Post: brewer
  The problem with "Hate crimes". onlinebiker 25 1123 February 11, 2022 at 9:03 pm
Last Post: Disagreeable
  Why do we hate the American military institution? WinterHold 16 823 November 23, 2021 at 1:40 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  With All the Anti-QAnon Hate, How Come We Never Hear About Christian Zionism? Seax 21 1751 April 6, 2021 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  USA politics of hate Richi29 4 343 July 23, 2020 at 12:56 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Is Trump Hate Legit or Mob Control? jessieban 37 5278 June 21, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  The Power of Freedom vs. Hate Speech Laws Mechaghostman2 13 1574 May 1, 2018 at 10:02 pm
Last Post: chimp3
  The biggest crime in the history of humanity WinterHold 16 2638 September 22, 2017 at 7:04 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  This is why people hate America NuclearEnergy 57 13131 September 4, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  No Wonder The Republicunts Will Hate It! Minimalist 1 583 July 30, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: vorlon13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)