Hate Crime Legislation

[Eilonnwy]

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?

---

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.