Hate crimes

June 1, 2008, 3:03 PM

So, I think this is sort of an interesting, debatable topic. Do you think those who commit hate crimes should be given a heavier sentence? For instance, if a man kills another man because he is black/Jewish/whatever, should be be given a longer sentence than a man who killed a man in a crime of passion/whatever? Why/why not?

June 1, 2008, 3:42 PM

I think my first instinct would be no, they shouldn't be given longer sentences. To me, the crime is still the same regardless of a person's motives for doing so, at the end of the day the same damage has been done.

Another point is that it would probably be possible for somebody to lie about their motives, I'm not saying it would be easy but it could be done. A lot of law involves twisting the truth anyway so it'd probably be expected. It's just another possible reason, although I think the first is stronger, because murder is murder whatever the reason.

June 1, 2008, 3:42 PM

Hmm.
What's to say that a caucasian man killing a caucasian man is any different to a caucasian man killing a black man? Because the cause might be different? It still results in death, and the victim's suffering is by default, the same. The crime and punishment should be the same regardless of intent. It's just silly changing the punishment because one motivation for a crime is considered more or less "evil"/extreme than another. That, and what if something is just branded a "hate crime" just because someone who happened to be part of a persecuted minority happened to be the victim? You never hear of prosecution for reverse "hate crimes", either.

June 1, 2008, 3:47 PM

I'm inclined to be more lenient towards crimes of passion. Someone's motives for murdering someone doesn't shorten their sentence. Take Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie, basically they murder an evil disgusting person, who's death is a positive thing. They all had noble motives for murdering him, but if it was real and thy were found guilty they would still get 25 to life. So I don't think it's fair to make punishments harsher for hate crimes.
Also I'm pro capital punishment, and I don't think it's possible to give a harsher punishment that death.

June 1, 2008, 4:28 PM

I believe sentencing should be uniform regardless of the conditions under which the crime was committed. If the crime is the same, then so should the punishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debbie Harry

Another point is that it would probably be possible for somebody to lie about their motives, I'm not saying it would be easy but it could be done.

Good point. Motive can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Noir

Also I'm pro capital punishment, and I don't think it's possible to give a harsher punishment that death.

In many cases, I feel that criminals get off easy with the death penalty. Some dude totures, rapes and murders a group of children. He gets a painless, lethal injection. Torture the dude, I say.

June 1, 2008, 7:50 PM

Those who commit crimes need help. They can be really poor so they steal. They could've been badly raised. Punishing them will not make a big difference I think. It may look like a right thing to do, but really they need help in uderstanding. I'm not saying they need a doctor. Maybe a friend that could warm his/her heart.
If one person makes a crime, like beat up another person and let's say he would get 1 year sentence. He would get angry and once the person is free he will continue to do crimes, only for revenge.

**Battle Royale: Profiles** · June 1, 2008, 10:40 PM

I'm a bit torn on this topic. The law is supposed to be fair, yet with American law, they make many amendments to go with the times. Most of the hate-crime additions followed repeated, or famous acts of discrimination. Matthew Shepard's murder was the case that really put hate crimes against homosexuals on the map.

Really, I think they just exist as a deterrent, and for that, I believe that the heavier sentences do serve their cause. But, on the other hand, many people use the 'race card' as a way of getting away with crimes. So, like many good ideas that start out with the best intentions, it's an idea that I think is a double edged sword just like the rest.

Personally, I feel that motive and intent SHOULD be considered heavily when sentencing for a crime. If an abused house-wife kills her husband after a heavy beating, compared with a man who raped, beat, and murdered a woman he didn't know....well, I'd feel that the latter would deserve a much heavier sentence, because the crime was much crueler than the first.

June 2, 2008, 2:07 AM

Nope. I feel that Hate is just another factor to the reason of the crime.
In other words, my belief is that hate is comparable to the reasons why others commit crimes, be it passion, envy or whatsoever. So, the sentence should remain the same.

June 2, 2008, 2:40 AM

No, because the outcome is equivalent. In terms of punishment (comparing hate crimes and crimes of passion), the only thing that should matter is how the crime is preformed (i.e., out of two murders, one being quick and the other death being torturous, I think that the torturous crime should be more heavily punished). Since we're talking about hate crimes, I think that the reason why said person commits a crime should only determine the kind of psychological help that they need.

But in general, speaking broadly about all crimes, I think that cases can depend on the circumstances (let's say that someone found out that someone planned to murder ten people, so before the latter could preform the action, the former kills him. I think that under a special circumstance like that, the punishment for the crime should be less severe).