Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong

[johncmcleod]

First off, I would like to say I AM NOT A RACIST!!! I know as a fact that racism is terrible.

Second, you'll probably say, oh, he's from Coeur d'Alene, he's a racist. There are hardly any racists in Coeur d'Alene. The Aryans were kicked out. Everyone in the town wanted them gone. When they did their parades, a peace rally in every city near the parade happened. Local businesses sold their products for free so people would go away from the parade. The ones that watched the parade egged the Aryans.

Our constitution guruantees that no matter race, creed, or religion, everyone is equal and the government will not prejudice against people of different races, creeds, or religions. This is why it was wrong to persecute the communists. A hate crime is considered worse than regular murder because:

murder + discrimination > murder

But this is wrong. The fact that the government punishes people harsher because they are racist is a prejudice against a racists' creed. It is the same as punishing someone for murder more if they are a communist. Hate crimes and other laws that are against racists are wrong, because the government isn't supposed to punish someone because of their creed.

Though racism is bad, I support a racist's right to be racist and not have to worry about being prejudiced against.

[Jaguar]

But if a guy kills his wife because he hates her, you don't expect him to kill another person. If a guy kills a stranger on the street because he's Black, you can bet he's gonna do it again.

[Gibsie]

Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Second, you'll probably say, oh, he's from Coeur d'Alene, he's a racist.

What the hell are you talking about? Anyone who did think that would themselves be a racist.

[BeBMan]

Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong

Well - if a racist murders one it is murder - isn´t that enough?

How exactly is it punished more than a "normal" case of murder (yeah, I know murder is not normal)?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
But if a guy kills his wife because he hates her, you don't expect him to kill another person. If a guy kills a stranger on the street because he's Black, you can bet he's gonna do it again.

Why?

If a guy decides because he hates his wife (not talking crime of passion because the plundered his bank accounts, sold his truck, took his dog to the pound then ran off with the pool boy), it's ok to off her, he isn't likely to have any hangups about offing anyone else he happens to hate. "Damn, I hate that loser neighbor kid playing his guitar late at night" BLAM!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong

Originally posted by Gibsie


What the hell are you talking about? Anyone who did think that would themselves be a racist.

Gibsie-wibsie: Until recently, the Coeur D'Alene-Hayden Lake area of Idaho (which has a pretty small population) was haven to the largest collection of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the US. If you're more than, say, 100 km from the area, the white supremacist guys were the only thing even remotely attention-getting or newsworthy, and it was common to assume that they were in "friendly" territory.

[johncmcleod]

Yes, a hate crime is more morally wrong then a 'normal' murder, but it is unconstitutional to punish someone harsher for being a racist.

How exactly is it punished more than a "normal" case of murder (yeah, I know murder is not normal)?

Aren't hate crimes punished more severely?

[DRoseDARs]

Short of the Death Penalty, murders can get either decades in prison, life-sentences, multiple life-sentences, and the possibility of parole may differ. The specifics of those punishments are what vary between regular murder and hate-motivated murders.

As I see it, if you're convicted of one murder (or more ) then you got locked away for life until natural death (Capital Punish is state-sponsered murder). Only exonorating evidence (like DNA for many instances) can set you free; no parole otherwise. Murder is murder is murder; hate just makes it that much more imperative that the murder be found guilty of their crime and punished.

Jagwar was right: regular murder is almost always a one-time deal. Habitual murderers have deeper problems: mental disorders, lack of a sense of right-and-wrong, hate-filled. They are FAR more likely to kill again and again.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

Aren't hate crimes punished more severely?

I don´t know, I´m not living in the US.....

[Inverse Icarus]

so forcing the aryans otu of their homes, which their families may have lvied for generations, isn't a hate crime?

[johncmcleod]

so forcing the aryans otu of their homes, which their families may have lvied for generations, isn't a hate crime?

They weren't really kicked out. They were sued because someone accidentally drove near the Aryan compound and the Aryans shot at her. They went bankrupt and had to leave.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nutter Aryans!

[Shi Huangdi]

This a frequently held debate here at Apolyton, don't know how many time I've stated my position. Anyway, hate crimes are worthy of harsher sentencing because of the terror affect. To go back to my usual tried and true example, take a step back from murder. Take the crime of vandalism. Say Michael the Great graffitis on a wall "YO MIKEY G BE DA ORIGINAL PIMP". Then say someone were to graffiti "KILL ALL ******S" or even "**** THE STUPID ******S" The latter two do more do damage, the second of the three perhaps going to inflict terror.

Now go back to murder. Take two examples. Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

The two crimes are just as bad, IMO. Both are premeditated murders. Just because one was against someone of a group means nothing to me. You have a right to hate, so why are we imparting harsher penalties on something you have a Constitutional right to believe?

[Ramo]

The effect of the murder by the KKK is worse than the effect of the murder by the drug lord, hence a harsher sentence is warranted for the crime by the KKK. The issue is not what the criminal believes, but how the criminal acts, and one action is clearly worse than the other.