Are Hate Crimes rascist?

[tek]

For example, are the of gays and blacks more valued over caucasians so that special legislation and sentencing is needed?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, are the of gays and blacks more valued over caucasians so that special legislation and sentencing is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is moot. Caucasians are protected under hate crime legislation too.

Stu

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, are the of gays and blacks more valued over caucasians so that special legislation and sentencing is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is moot. Caucasians are protected under hate crime legislation too.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
Hate crime legislation is the some of the dumbest legislation in recent memory. If someone kills a minority (protected class, whatever) upon conviction they already face a wide variation of possible sentences. Existing laws already provide ways to impose a harsh sentence (harsher than average).

Every serious crime carries a sentence like 10-25 years, 30 years to life, life, possibly the death sentence, etc, etc. If someone commits a crime that is particularly senseless (for example, killing someone because they are gay) they should obviously receive a sentence on the harsher end of the scale (upon conviction). I don't see how new laws can possibly help anything. It's like saying "we can't try this guy just for first degree murder, that's not a serious enough crime."

The solution to problems is not always to come up with new laws. Enforcing existing laws usually works just as well, if not better.

[SnakeRat]

Yeah, obviously gays and blacks are more valued. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, obviously gays and blacks are more valued. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

only to Prince fans

[nothumb]

The problem with your argument is that judges and juries don't tend to follow your logic. They historically didn't (and in some cases still don't) convict or impose as harsh of a penalty on people when the victims of their crimes were homosexuals, blacks, etc.

As long as hate crime laws protect all people, including those of us in the 'majority', from crimes motivated by hate, I think they are a fair and welcome legislation.

NT

[Stu Pidasso]

I agree with you that hate crime laws are unnecessary and that a more stringent application of existing laws would have been better. In my post I was merely pointing out that existing hate crime laws do not value blacks and gays more than straight people or caucasians. I can envision these laws being applied in such a way as to favor blacks and gays but so far I have not seen this.

Stu

[CORed]

I have a real problem with the notion that killing or assaulting somebody because of there race, sexual orientation or whatever is somehow worse than killing them or assaulting them for some other reason. Case in point. One of the Denver Papers recently reported that the two scumbags who killed Matthew Shephard in Wyoming (he was a young gay University of Woming student who was severely beaten and left tied to a fence) say they did it primarily so they could steal his money to buy drugs, not because he was gay (both pled guilty to murder and are doing life sentences, BTW).

Assuming that these upstanding citizens are telling the truth, who thinks their sentences should be commuted now?

[ThaSaltCracka]

doing something harmful to another person based solely on their race/sex/creed is far worse than harming someone for more conventional reasons(such as robbing someone because you are in need of money regardless of their race/sex/creed/whatever)/.

[vulturesrow]

Hate crimes=thought control at its finest.