No, I'm not saying non-hate crimes are punished too leniently. I'm just using that as an additional example so people can see both sides.

My point is the exact same as yours, I do not like the inequality if the crime is the same. Murder is murder, assault is assault, you're obviously not doing things like this to people you DO like, so obviously any crime is a hate-crime.

Easier to ignore it since it defeats OPs argument.

Don't you think I thought about that before I posted this?

Obviously I read it, but that's the POLITICAL response I didn't want. I mean Christ, he got it from Wikipedia, obviously it's explaining WHY IT IS the current law, but I'm saying the current law doesn't make sense.

This country claims to offer equality, you can't discriminate... everyone is equal. BUT, when determining the level of punishment to a crime, they break the incident down by sex, race, nationality, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation?

WAT?

Was the WAT? supposed to be in response to your idiotic last paragraph.

Yup.

Uhhh, no. The laws are to punish discrimination. They in themselves aren't discriminating.

we try to encourage ******s to stay in BBV or politics, ok? just FYI

So it's more acceptable for me to kill for cutting me off on the freeway, as long as I don't discriminate against your race, sex, or beliefs. I'm glad we're on the same page.

if i kill all of you for being ******ed is that a hate crime against ******s?

Holy crap. You are dumb. Neither is acceptable at all. The laws aren't...

**** You for Being a Killer, but Thank You for Not Being a Racist
vs.
**** You for Being a Killer

it's

**** You for Being a Killer
vs.
**** You for Being a Killer and here's an extra **** you for being a racist


The non-hate crime punishment isn't less than what it would normally be, the hate crime punishment is more. You see the difference? It's like breaking 2 laws instead of one.

So freedom of speech stops when you commit a crime? I believe 100% that all are equal, regardless of any chosen or unchosen factors and traits, but not everyone feels that way.

If a Mexican guy kills a black guy in a bank robbery versus in a racial gang fight, why give him less punishment? The first wasn't a hate crime, he didn't have reason, but the other guy is still dead?

Quit being ignorant.

God, I'm prescient.

LOL. Freedom of speech is shooting a black guy because he's black. Got it.

LOL. Awesome. Serious question though. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for a hate crime against a group that the perpetrator is a part of. i.e. Joe is white but hates whitey. Goes around yelling "Die cracka die!" and kills white people. Then prosecuted for a hate crime? Or Clayton Bigsby type situations?

No I'm saying the idea of not liking someone for who they are or their beliefs. I can voice that I don't believe in Buddha or that I don't approve of homosexuality. Those thoughts are not hate crimes, they are perfectly acceptable if that is what someone believes.

So for a mexican to not like black people, then one trys to stop him from robbing a bank, he gets killed. Hate crime?

You are very thick. The first thing that would make you appear slightly less stupid is if you stopped saying, "OMG IF A WHITE GUY KILLS A BLACK GUY IT'S A HATE CRIME BUT IF A WHITE GUY KILLS ANOTHER WHITE GUY EVERYONE IS HUNKY DOREY!"

Your particular quoted example is even stupider than any of your previous posts, because these are two entirely different crimes. There's something called premeditation, and when it's involved, punishment tends to be stiffer.

You seem to be missing or ignoring the point - inter-race homicide is not automatically a hate crime. If the intent was purely racially motivated, then it's a hate crime.

U.S. law makes differentiations between many crimes based on intent. 'With intent to sell.' 'With intent to cause serious bodily harm.' You could easily say the same thing about any of these instances. 'Why should a drug possessor get a more sever punishment because he had half a kilo of cocaine? Maybe he intended to snort it all himself.'

Stop being so ****ing ******ed. Seriously. You can't possibly think anyone is suggesting this.

Hate crimes are not prosecuted based on your thoughts. They're based on your actions.

How about a Samoan guy and an Asian guy (or any other two races. Got tired of the white/black examples) get into a fight in a bar. The fight was caused by the typical bull**** that starts bar fights (spill a drink, looking at wrong girl etc). If the cause of the fight was not racial, but during the fight one of the parties makes racist statements, is that a hate crime? Would one guy get charged with assault, while the other gets charged with a hate crime? I don't think it is this way, but I'm not a legal expert. Perhaps some of the legal eagles can clear this up for me.

Wow. The "political answer" Goofy gave (sore toe and all) is the right answer because laws are a result of politics.

But you don't want that. You want to put forward an incorrect premise that the victim of a hate crime is less of a person than the victim of the same non-hate version of the crime because by definition they are a member of a "protected" class. This is faulty for a couple of different reason. The victim of the hate crime doesn't really matter, it's the opinion of the victim that the perp had when they committed the crime that makes it a hate crime. Also, being a member of a protected class implies that they are legally unequal to non-protected class members, again, it's a legal distinction not a moral one. And finally, your a dooty head who should GBIAHC.

but guys what if an elderly black catholic-turned-muslim gentleman burned a cross on the lawn of a jewish immigrant from czechoslovakia, but only because his lesbian granddaughter doesn't like republicans. hate crime?

I don't know what the laws are in Bizarro World.

Wow this is sooooo stupid. The arguments against the status quo are just so hugely lol.

If I had to choose one and only one time to use this animated .gif, this would be that time.

OP is ridic, but I don't think your statement here is right.

Let's say I am a racist in my mind, and I kill a black man. The police don't know I am a racist (you couldn't tell from the crime itself) but during the interrogation I say "I don't like black people, and that is indeed the reason why I killed him." If I get more punishment than if I had kept my mouth shut or lied, then clearly the law is assuming that racist thoughts are worse than other thoughts. Right?

fybpm,
Punishments for crimes aren't solely based on morality there are other reasons to punishments are created, such as to deter others from committing those crimes. Since Hate crimes spawn more crimes lawmakers decided to create a larger deterrent than regular crimes as a form of prevention. If you want to argue against it I suggest you argue.
A) That the deterrent created by hate crime legislation is ineffective.
B) The policies create racial tension by making race an important issue in public cases.
Simply arguing it is unfair while it maybe true isn't arguing against the reasons for the law.

No, because, once again, you killed him because you don't like black people. That was your action. That is what you would be punished for, not for actually saying it in open court. Your admittance only proves the intent behind your actions.

It's a motive for the action; it's not part of the action.