Now you be the judge. Which crime is worse?
Burning a church because the pastor offended you or burning a church because they are Christians?
Assaulting a man because he did not return the money you loaned him or assaulting a man because he is gay?
Slashing someone's tires because she is dating your ex or slashing someone's tires because she is black?
Shooting a child because she was in the way of your drive-by or shooting a child because she is Muslim?
And who determines what is hateful? Is it hateful to believe that homosexuality is wrong? When does hating become a crime in itself? Where do you draw the lines? Is putting a Koran in a toilet a hate crime? It has been charged as one. Is putting a Bible or the Book of Mormon or the Talmud in a toilet a hate crime? Is a crucifix in a jar of urine a hate crime? No, Piss Christ is a "work of art."
So who determines what is a hate crime? What do you think?
.jpg){kind=link}
2 comments:
I think the deal with hate crimes is the probability that that person will commit that crime again. Odds are slashing the girlfriends tires cause she cheated is a crime of passion, per se. But if it dome because she is black, then that is a deep rooted hatred that most likely will still be there even after the tire is fixed. I don't know if the punishment should be different, but I do think it is important to distinguish between the two.0
hmmmm... I see your point, although I'm not sure it should affect the sentencing. The biggest problem that I see is when the crime itself is not determined by the action, but by the motive. Putting a copy of Moby Dick in a toilet would be rude and disgusting but not a crime. But putting a copy of the Koran is a crime... That's when it all turns gray, and there is too much room for opinion.
Post a Comment