05-30-2019, 01:36 PM
In general I agree with the concept of hate crimes. Hate crimes should be punished more severely because they have more victims. A crime against a gay person committed because he was gay puts the entire gay community in fear. It is the same theory as punishing acts of terrorism because of their effect on a larger group of people other than the direct victims. Burning a cross in one persons yard puts a lot of people in fear.
But, like any law, they get complicated when put in practice. Both Michaelsean and SSF have provided examples of certain groups being targeted not because of a hatred against their race or sexual orientation, but because of other traits that make them "easier" victims.
Although these examples are not the original intent of "hate crime" legislation they do put an entire community in fear of being victimized. So do we punish for "intent" or "result"?
But, like any law, they get complicated when put in practice. Both Michaelsean and SSF have provided examples of certain groups being targeted not because of a hatred against their race or sexual orientation, but because of other traits that make them "easier" victims.
Although these examples are not the original intent of "hate crime" legislation they do put an entire community in fear of being victimized. So do we punish for "intent" or "result"?
