It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RANT
We play the home version of comparative atrocities all the time. And to a certain extent I'm glad courts do.
Which is worse? Killing your husband for being a jerk or killing random people because you're the DC sniper?
I take it you might agree with the "cop killer" laws? What makes cops so special that killing one warrants the death penalty? I don't know, it's just worse.
But no one complains until they get caught for killing a cop. So why compain about hate crime laws unless, you're planning one?
While I want the absolute worst punishment possible for someone that rapes and kills a woman, I want that punishment plus 20 years and chemical castration for someone that rapes and kills a child.
While I want the absolute worst punishment possible for someone that rapes and kills a woman, I want that punishment plus 20 years and chemical castration for someone that rapes and kills a child. Or I want the death penalty (if we must have one) reserved for THAT guy. It's just stupid to put every retarded guy in Texas in the chair for being near a murder.
Originally posted by mwm1331
The problem is this,
1) how do you prove wether hate was a motivating factor or not? is any crime in which the defendant and victim are of different race, creed or religon a hate crime?