Are hate crimes a sign of equality or inequality?

Perhaps both. I think the attitude depends on status. Politicians and other élites aren't going to do much for our protections if we aren't being openly assaulted and harassed. However, the sort who will commit these crimes may very well see the frequency of attacks as approval to do so themselves, as the amount of other people doing it makes it seem acceptable.

 

I have been thinking about this lately.

Hate crimes are punishment, for not only the crime, but the reasons the crime was committed. We know that crime is punishable, but hate crime laws have made reasons ( or thoughts) punishable. I just don't know if we can extend punishment for a crime based on the reasons the crime was committed. Crimes are all committed through poor reasoning, is one reason better than another?
Any crime committed against another person or group is a "hate" crime if you think about it. I just think that this is dangerous territory because it opens up a gate for personal opinions to be punishable. I may not like the way another person thinks, but I believe that they should have the freedom to form their own opinions. If they hurt me, they can be punished for the act not the thought.
Just my opinion, many of you will disagree and you have every right.

 

It's like a necessary inequality. If there are hate crimes then the crimes have to be looked at more in depth so we don't get overlooked. We actually get justice instead of people having a people with a prejudice decide our fate.

 

I'd say that neither are right.

This sentence from the second argument bothers me most however "A crime should be a crime regardless of the population of the victim".

It's almost like saying that regardless of the gravity of a crime, "a crime should be a crime" and should only be judged under one principal; that it created a victim. It ignores the fact that "motives" plays a very important role in classifying the degree of the crime, as well as the appropriate response/sentence.

 

I don't know what the official definition of a hate crime is, but here's my personal opinion: Any crime committed against a person or a group of people because of a certain dislike for something about that person or group of people should be classified as a hate crime.

So, let's say that someone kills a white person or a straight person because they don't like whites/straights and they want whites/straights to suffer. Even though these incidents won't occur nearly as often as such crimes committed against blacks or LGBT individuals, when and if they do occur, they should be classified as hate crimes.

 

^This. Hate is hate no matter where it's placed.

 

I would also like to add that simply because someone commits a crime against a minority is not going to classify it as a 'hate crime'. The title 'Hate Crime' causes a horde of riff-raff in societies. There has to be legitimate prove that race or orientation was the driving force behind the act in order for it to hold up in court. Not to mention, motive has always been a drying factor in crime. It is, truthfully, the biggest factor into the choosing of the punishment.

'Hate Crimes' are given so much weight because it has the lowest possible motive. Similar to if I decided to mass murder every right-handed person. There is such a lack of reason that it must be treated severely.

 

Um, what? Obviously hate crimes should not exist, I don't think we ever need hate crimes to happen just to show that minority populations should not be victimized; that's a terrible idea. :eek:

And obviously hate crimes are a sign of inequality; majority populations aren't the ones being targeted by hate crimes, which is why we need special laws to protect against them. Hopefully one day there will be no more hate crimes, but we're not there yet- sadly not even close.

 

I think he means hate crime laws. Not necessarily hate crimes themselves. However I may be wrong and if I'm wrong that totally changes this topic in my head. Huh... Things that make you think.

 

Yeah, I was confused. Could we clarify exactly what we mean? Is it hate crimes THEMSELVES or laws against hate crimes?

EDIT: Aaah, okay. That's much better.

I'm for hate crime laws. I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was here) that laws were made so that people wouldn't get hurt. If hate crime laws didn't exist, too many people WOULD be getting hurt. Hate crime laws aren't really against anyone that's not the person doing the hate crime.

 

Oh, alright, glad you clarified that. I was just going to say, to anyone who thinks hate crimes need to exist for some reason to somehow help minority populations, how would you feel if you or someone you know was actually the victim of one of those hate crimes?

But yeah we definitely need laws to protect against hate crimes. Most of the people who argue against hate crime laws are ignorant or else deliberately ignore the fact that the law constantly distinguishes different crimes and punishments based on motive and intent. Society has a vested interest in punishing crimes motivated by hate more harshly to protect minority populations.