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.
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.
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?
"How dare you ban me from being horrible to people?"
I disagree that motives don't matter. You have to take the circumstances into account. For example, a woman in an abusive relationship who kills her husband because she sees it as the only way out is not the same as a man who murders a random child for sadistic pleasure. Even though a person is dead either way.
Do we not agree that prejudices such as racism are worse than a casual insult?
Is it worse to call a black person a 'N word' or a *******/***** etc.?