peacefuljeffrey
member
One thing we are missing in this discussion is the reason behind making certain crimes into "hate crimes." Why did they legislate it?
What I have read is that they made the "hate crime" designation to enhance penalties for certain attacks because they want to deter the "message-sending" crimes. They call "hate crimes" a kind of terrorism and say that they are designed to send a message to others of the race of the person/people who were attacked.
I see major flaws in this thinking.
Let's say I was a huge bigot (I'm not) and I went out one night with my friends to beat up some "n!@@ers". And we found some black guys we didn't like the looks of, and we beat them up. That is not a crime trying to send a "message" to anyone, or to other blacks. It would most likely be a crime of "we beat up THESE guys"! :banghead:
I think that you can be charged with a hate crime because the courts attribute motives to you ("sending a 'fear me' message to others of your victim's race/sexual orientation/gender/etc.") that you did not necessarily intend.
And since when is being feared something you can be charged with? I mean, if I read about a guy in the paper, a black guy who robbed and beat and stabbed a white guy, even if he did it strictly for robbery purposes, shouldn't I have a reasonable fear of that guy if I happen to run into him? Why is that fear (of being robbed by the guy) to be taken less seriously just because it does not target due to race?
We're trying to protect people from having to worry that they'll be targeted for their group associations, but we ALL are the "target group" of people who rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill. Any crime that is not directed at a person specifically because of race, etc., should be considered a hate crime against humans in general -- and I call that WORSE.
If a guy will rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill people of ANY race, he is more dangerous to society as a whole than a guy who singles out blacks, or whites, or asians, or jews... He is more randomly dangerous to more people!
-Jeffrey
What I have read is that they made the "hate crime" designation to enhance penalties for certain attacks because they want to deter the "message-sending" crimes. They call "hate crimes" a kind of terrorism and say that they are designed to send a message to others of the race of the person/people who were attacked.
I see major flaws in this thinking.
Let's say I was a huge bigot (I'm not) and I went out one night with my friends to beat up some "n!@@ers". And we found some black guys we didn't like the looks of, and we beat them up. That is not a crime trying to send a "message" to anyone, or to other blacks. It would most likely be a crime of "we beat up THESE guys"! :banghead:
I think that you can be charged with a hate crime because the courts attribute motives to you ("sending a 'fear me' message to others of your victim's race/sexual orientation/gender/etc.") that you did not necessarily intend.
And since when is being feared something you can be charged with? I mean, if I read about a guy in the paper, a black guy who robbed and beat and stabbed a white guy, even if he did it strictly for robbery purposes, shouldn't I have a reasonable fear of that guy if I happen to run into him? Why is that fear (of being robbed by the guy) to be taken less seriously just because it does not target due to race?
We're trying to protect people from having to worry that they'll be targeted for their group associations, but we ALL are the "target group" of people who rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill. Any crime that is not directed at a person specifically because of race, etc., should be considered a hate crime against humans in general -- and I call that WORSE.
If a guy will rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill people of ANY race, he is more dangerous to society as a whole than a guy who singles out blacks, or whites, or asians, or jews... He is more randomly dangerous to more people!
-Jeffrey