The concept of hate crime is very stupid Watch

KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
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.
4
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
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.
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3


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.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by 999tigger)
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.
Yawn, no one is suggesting that those things are ok or should be legal. The rest of your post doesn't consist of any actual arguments other than "I think crimes motivated by racism etc are worse than if they are without that motivation" and "all crimes are different", but you don't actually give a reason for why you think those which are labelled as hate crimes are worse.

(Original post by Dandaman1)


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.
Great episode of one of the smartest and most subversive TV shows ever.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
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?
reply
ZeroFree
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by KingBradly)
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.
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.

Where did you get the part about what the Government find ''problematic''?

(Original post by KingBradly)
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.
Crimes that are committed against a certain group are indicative of prejudice against said group. I don't know if hate crimes are necessarily more strictly punished than others, though if they were I suppose it would be to deter people against prejudice, discrimination, etc.

(Original post by KingBradly)
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.
Over the areas that hate crimes cover, why should we not try to enforce thought?
3
reply
Bedrock100
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by 999tigger)
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?
But obesity is very damaging to society. Why is racism worse than obesity?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Multiculturalism
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by KingBradly)
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.
Oh right, so if someone accidentally kills someone, they should be treated the same as someone who purposely killed someone? Criminalizing motives is necessary to clamp down on discrimination.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
"How dare you ban me from being horrible to people?"
2
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bedrock100)
But obesity is very damaging to society. Why is racism worse than obesity?


Posted from TSR Mobile
History, slavery and fundamental human rights.

If youd like to live in a society where its ok to discriminate and abuse based on race, that's great. You would probably get civil unrest as well. Thought we had moved beyond that.

Obesity is damaging in different ways. Maybe you want to criminalise that? They currently aim to use education, industry regulation and taxation to assist. Be hard to lock everyone up though as the majority are overweight or obese. That makes it a bit impractical.
reply
Karosan
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
Reports of hate crime include people being offended by Nigel Farage and reporting it to the police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Bqkz45rKEUM
0
reply
Luke Kostanjsek
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by ZeroFree)
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.
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.
0
reply
Sternumator
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
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.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by KingBradly)
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..
Well, that is false.

Motives for crimes are obviously an important determining factor (among others) in the sentence.

Murdering a pedophile who killed a family member is quite clearly different from murdering someone for a mobile phone.

So, if you specifically murder someone on the basis of their race, then I think it is quite reasonable to add a mandatory time period onto that.

Now, whether "hate" crime legislation impinges on free speech and etc, is another argument which is more reasonable IMO.
0
reply
champ_mc99
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
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.?
1
reply
champ_mc99
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
"You can only be horrible to people if they aren't of these specific races, religions or genders."
Hate crime by definition isn't specific. Attacking someone due to them being any race is hate crime.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
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.
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.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Plagioclase)
"How dare you ban me from being horrible to people?"
You are free to be a racist if you want, but if you commit a crime and its racially motivated then you will get a more sever sentence.

You think racism is acceptable?
reply
Luke Kostanjsek
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
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.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
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.
Well, you can be arrested for hurling abuse at someone in the street depending on the situation. It isn't as simple as it being racial or not.

Like I said before, it is a question of history. There is a history of violence against racial minorities. These laws were put in place to discourage people from doing that and to discourage any related behavior. That is why those lines were chosen.

Is one objectively worse than the other? No. However, racism is clearly associated with more dangerous behavior.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (20)
15.5%
Yes - a food allergy (13)
10.08%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (4)
3.1%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (6)
4.65%
No (86)
66.67%

Watched Threads

View All