Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.
|
Right. The aspect of "hatred" being added to the crime means nothing - except it was the motive.
What's an "honor killing" as seen in a Muslim father killing his daughter because of disgrace - is that a "love crime"?
Besides the obvious fact that no one can truly know the inner thoughts of another - just what he or she chooses to express - the concept of hate crime prosecution is an absurdity as far as legal proceedings go.