The concept of hate crime is very stupid

Not really. I thini if there is a racial, religious, misogynistic motive, then that needs to be taken into account and given additional punishment.
Racism is not cool and should be deterred. People should be allowed to conduct their daily lives without being persecuted because of the colour of their skin, religion etc. Motives always matter in crimes as they can be ised as evidence to show why someone did soemthing or in sentencing to take into account the individual nature of each crime. I think it would be wrong to ignore things like racially motivated crimes, because they shouldnt be allowed to get away with such generally harmful actions.

All criminal law has an element of moral judgement in it. Thats what happens with penal codes. No need to be dramatic about it.

Kill a man because you happen to hate him and that's not a hate crime. Kill a woman because you happen hate women (according to the court, anyway) and suddenly that's worse, despite it having the same result.

Another problem with this is the South Park image I've included. Kill a gay guy (for whatever reason) and you've got more to worry about than if he happened to be straight.

The idea of "hate crimes" is rather Orwellian. It asserts that a crime with a certain motive that the government finds particularly problematic will be punished more severly than if it were of another motive.

Hate crimes can also be inciting hatred against certain groups, and I understand that to some degree, but I don't think crimes, that are already crimes regardless of hate crime laws, should be given stricter sentences because of the motives behind them. For example, a person killing someone because they just really detest them, is exactly as bad a crime as someone killing someone because they're a different race, and yet the government doesn't think so.

In reality, both of them are "hate crimes", but for some reason the hate in the latter crime is considered as more reprehensible than in the former. Why does the motive matter? The crime is the same, and the motive may be just as shallow and superficial if it weren't a hate crime. And even if it wasn't, so what? The motive isn't important. It is the crime that should be punished, not the thinking behind it. Criminalizing the motives just seems like thought policing.

Because racism is very damaging to society, hence it deserves a harsher punishment. Criminal law is just codified morals and minimum standards of behaviour. Have you done any jurisprudence or criminology, because that's where you will find these arguments discussed?

The motive isn't important. It is the crime that should be punished, not the thinking behind it. Criminalizing the motives just seems like thought policing.

But obesity is very damaging to society. Why is racism worse than obesity?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Wrong, that is not what a hate crime is.A hate crime is a crime committed against someone because of their race, religion, sexuality, disability or gender identification.

I don't think crimes, that are already crimes regardless of hate crime laws, should be given stricter sentences because of the motives behind them..

"You can only be horrible to people if they aren't of these specific races, religions or genders."

But what if I were to kill someone because they're fat, and I hate fat people? I mean, morally, it's no worse than a so called 'hate crime'. I'm still committing a crime against a group because I've decided that that group is inherently deserving of it. Where do you draw the line? Which groups get special protection, so that if they suffer abuse it's considered a criminal offense, and which don't? I mean, I dare say fat people get all sorts of abuse about being fat. Why isn't hurling abuse at fat people considered as bad as hurling abuse at gay people, or black people, or women or the disabled?

That's the problem with these kind of policies. Where do you draw the line? Cause it seems to me that the line is utterly arbitrary.

"How dare you ban me from being horrible to people?"

Well, hurling abuse at anyone is bad.

The difference is there is not history of attacking fat people on the basis of their BMI in this country.

That is why it has never been enacted in law.

Having said that....feel free to go to your local MP.

I agree, hurling abuse at anyone is indeed bad. But we seem to have decided that hurling abuse at some people is not just bad, but criminal. And given as there is no difference whatsoever between the act, the motive behind the act and the potential impact on the victim, I don't really understand how you can consider them differently.

And obesity is just one example. What about people who smoke, who face constant pressure from everyone to change their habit, but it is considered socially acceptable to pressure them? The problem is that I don't see that there is any real distinction, so the line-drawing is arbitrary and has the effect of implying that abusing a black person is worse than abusing a fat person. Whereas I'd argue that the two or identical.