Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by Laykilla
"To me, a hate crime is when you commit an actual crime based upon an unfair prejudice. Voicing your opinion that you are indeed prejudice is not in
fact a hate crime.
For exemplary practice only;
Calling someone a fag and saying "I hate gays" is not a hate crime. Beating up a gay person because they are gay is. Do you see the difference?"
No i dont see the difference mate. A crime is just that! IMHO tagging hate on the front debases the notion. Why should an assault on gay black or any
other individual be different?
edit on 13-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
I kind of wrestled with that same notion when I wrote it, so I can't fault you for disagreeing, as it crossed my mind typing that post, but the real
reason I see it being different, is promotion.
If someone commits a crime because of their prejudice and the prejudice goes unaddressed, you are saying it's okay to be prejudice.
Now, I'm not saying that it should be against the law to be prejudice, however -- I think we should promote that it's not really okay, because it's
Hating a person because of the color of their skin is like hating something for no reason. And as long as you have people out there promoting their
prejudice, you will continue to have crimes committed because of that prejudice. Matter of factly.
So encouraging people to not be prejudice with justice seems aptly fit. You know, you can't prove a hate crime unless you admit it was a hate
So it doesn't really take anything away from those that choose to be prejudice, for example -- if that guy beats up a gay guy, because he's gay -- all
he has to do, is keep that to himself and he wouldn't be charged with a hate crime.
At the end of the day, intentions matter in the crime.
Someone is speeding; he gets a ticket.
Someone is speeding, but on their way to the hospital with a person in critical condition in their vehicle who needs immediate care, he gets an
escort, and not a ticket.
If I decide I want to kill some one, context matters.
I'm being attacked and I decide to use lethal force even though it wasn't necessarily called for, but it could have been -- depends. The outcome of
that is a charge that is either, Murder One, Manslaughter, or Dropped Charges.
Now if I was being attacked by a gay person, and I didn't have to use lethal force, and I did -- because I hate gays -- I should be charged with a
higher degree of murder, which is equivalent to being charged of murder and a hate crime.
Essentially the "Hate crime" is not a crime, it's an affix to a charge, and can only be used in proper context.
You don't have to agree; and I do understand your position as again -- as I was typing that I wrestled with that myself, but upon further thinking
about it, it's no different then lessening or hardening a charge based on the context of the crime committed.
And no matter what, I don't think all crimes should be punished equally -- I'm a firm believer in they should be punished accordingly, and that
context matter greatly, for each and every crime is a unique set of circumstances, and should be treated accordingly, instead of blanketed.
Otherwise, the guy trying to save the life of the person in his car who needed immediate care would be getting a ticket every time.
So, either context matters, or it doesn't, but it's 100% one way or the other. And personally, I think context should matter every time, because some
laws can be broken in order to save people, and if we are going to punish someone who made the right decision that's just wrong -- IMO.
13-10-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)