Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
Punishment should be based on the crime. Not the race or sexuality of the person that the crime is against. To do otherwise promotes the idea that the victims are somehow "different" than the rest of us, and that they deserve more protection under the law. Sentences should never be artificially inflated in this manner.
Edited, Oct 1st 2010 1:09pm by Eske
The reason why the hate crime is classified as such is because the victim was specifically chosen because the perpetrators saw the victim as "different" from them. It's not a entitlement to more protection under the law, it's that the law recognizes that when someone commits a crime because of the victim's gender/sexuality/race/etc. that crime is more heinous because it shows a certain mindset of the perpetrator's actions.
Edit to clarify my last sentence. I re-read it and it sounded off. Sorry, legal document review today is killing me.
Edited, Oct 1st 2010 3:09pm by Thumbelyna Oh, I know. But say I really had it in for plumbers. I hate them, and I go on a tear where I brutally murder 6 plumbers. Or people with brown hair. Or CEO's. Or left-handed people. Why should that be any different? They all show a certain mindset: a driving hatred and irrationality that spurs me to hurt or kill whatever's got my goat. Every comparable crime to a "hate crime"
is a hate crime. There isn't any less hate involved if I kill someone because I hate them for stealing my girlfriend, or if I hate them because they're black. Punish based on the crime with an understanding of the motivation; don't punish based on the motivation. Assault is assault. Murder is murder.
Why do we specify race and sexuality minorities? What I think, is that it's a decision that's geared more towards engineering behavior than impartial justice. If the punishments are worse for crimes against those people, then somehow people will be less likely to commit those crimes. I do think that it conveys the idea that those minorities are entitled to more protection: commit a crime against one, and you face far, far greater retribution than against another. I'm sure that isn't the driving mentality behind the laws, but it sure seems to further that idea to me.
I don't agree with that.
PS: I'll push this one even further, just to be controversial. I don't think there should be a distinction if a crime is committed against a child instead of an adult. It's the same thing: social engineering through law. We prefer it if violence is committed against an adult, because we rationalize it by saying that the adult can fight back. But objectively, why does this make the crime any better?
Edited, Oct 1st 2010 7:26pm by Eske