Take action at http://www.hrc.org/FightHate after you watch this message about the need for hate crimes laws, produced by the Human Rights Campaign for Cyndi Lauper's True Colors Tour.
The motivations are not only important for punishment, but also for morality. Killing may not always be muderdering, per example.
Nobody would consider that a person that cause an explosion by forgetting to turn of his oven are as guilty as a suicide bomber. He might not be considered guilty at all.
With the same logic, we can say that a person that is proud of killing someone else and would do it again if given the chance, that person should have harder sentences.
Many people are saying that the background of a crime is not relevant,and that because of this, hate crime bill makes no sense.
The problem of this argument is that you are not considerating the purpose of prisons in the modern countries,wich is segragating the dangerous individual of society and reeducating them.So, you must take consideration of the situation, condition and motivation of the criminal.Ex: Someone that steal food because of poverty have not so much blame as a professional thief.
gay is just another reason for people to act like animals.what does it matter who loves who?by someone beating or yelling bullshit to someone else from any corner of the world is a display of ignorance, cause what people are doesn't define WHO they are.if you hate gay so much than don't get curious and you won't turn gay,otherwise if your not gay than you dont get to have a say in what others do with their own lives.Quit being so fucking nosey!
(cont.) Self defense for example, is justifiable by virtue of an analysis of the action itself, it does not matter who the actors in the scenario are. It is just as fine for someone to defend themself against a straight assailant as it would be for them to defend themself against a gay assailant. The sexual orientation, race, or whatever of the people involved are irrelevant to the action itself, and thus should be treated as such.
Secondly, self defense is a perfectly justifiable act in of its own right.
So, do you think that if OJ Simpson had been gay, his wife would not have had the right to defend herself, but since he was straight, self defense would have been fine? Because your reasoning seems to suggest this.
Once again, crime should be punished by virtue of the action, not by virtue of who the action was committed against. (cont.)
@the5thCount I was stating facts about the law, not giving an opinion so don't presume you know what I support. As a society, we could scrap MOTIVE as neccessary for conviction but then if, for example, OJ's wife had killed him in self defence she would have had to go to jail for a full murder sentence.
So why is it good for the law to discriminate against people? That is in essence what you support. You don't support equality under the law, rather, you think that gay people should be able to demand higher penalties for offences committed against them than straight people should be able to. That my friend, is called injustice. I guess you would have no problem with the fact that OJ Simpson got off killing his wife simply because he was a celebrity, because you like legal inequality.
@the5thCount Criminal Law '101' : All convictions for crime (in most of the world) must be based on the perpetrator having means, motive, & opportunity. If the only motivation for the crime is hatred of the victim's creed, colour, sex, sexual orientation, etc. then the law has to recognize this as a motive.
Homophobic murderers believe that they are doing a service to humanity, or even for God. They are incapable of respecting some members of society.
This make them incorigible criminals.
bushit123456 1 week ago
The motivations are not only important for punishment, but also for morality. Killing may not always be muderdering, per example.
Nobody would consider that a person that cause an explosion by forgetting to turn of his oven are as guilty as a suicide bomber. He might not be considered guilty at all.
With the same logic, we can say that a person that is proud of killing someone else and would do it again if given the chance, that person should have harder sentences.
bushit123456 2 weeks ago
Many people are saying that the background of a crime is not relevant,and that because of this, hate crime bill makes no sense.
The problem of this argument is that you are not considerating the purpose of prisons in the modern countries,wich is segragating the dangerous individual of society and reeducating them.So, you must take consideration of the situation, condition and motivation of the criminal.Ex: Someone that steal food because of poverty have not so much blame as a professional thief.
bushit123456 2 weeks ago
@the5thCount "For a person to receive a higher penalty for assaulting a gay person then for assaulting a straight person is illogical"
This is not what the law says. The crime must have homophobia as motivation, so not any crime against a gay person will be judged as a hate crime.
bushit123456 2 weeks ago
gay is just another reason for people to act like animals.what does it matter who loves who?by someone beating or yelling bullshit to someone else from any corner of the world is a display of ignorance, cause what people are doesn't define WHO they are.if you hate gay so much than don't get curious and you won't turn gay,otherwise if your not gay than you dont get to have a say in what others do with their own lives.Quit being so fucking nosey!
Redraid24 4 weeks ago
(cont.) Self defense for example, is justifiable by virtue of an analysis of the action itself, it does not matter who the actors in the scenario are. It is just as fine for someone to defend themself against a straight assailant as it would be for them to defend themself against a gay assailant. The sexual orientation, race, or whatever of the people involved are irrelevant to the action itself, and thus should be treated as such.
the5thCount 2 months ago
@Yickbob
Did I ever state that motive should be scrapped?
Secondly, self defense is a perfectly justifiable act in of its own right.
So, do you think that if OJ Simpson had been gay, his wife would not have had the right to defend herself, but since he was straight, self defense would have been fine? Because your reasoning seems to suggest this.
Once again, crime should be punished by virtue of the action, not by virtue of who the action was committed against. (cont.)
the5thCount 2 months ago
@the5thCount I was stating facts about the law, not giving an opinion so don't presume you know what I support. As a society, we could scrap MOTIVE as neccessary for conviction but then if, for example, OJ's wife had killed him in self defence she would have had to go to jail for a full murder sentence.
Yickbob 2 months ago
@Yickbob
So why is it good for the law to discriminate against people? That is in essence what you support. You don't support equality under the law, rather, you think that gay people should be able to demand higher penalties for offences committed against them than straight people should be able to. That my friend, is called injustice. I guess you would have no problem with the fact that OJ Simpson got off killing his wife simply because he was a celebrity, because you like legal inequality.
the5thCount 2 months ago
@the5thCount Criminal Law '101' : All convictions for crime (in most of the world) must be based on the perpetrator having means, motive, & opportunity. If the only motivation for the crime is hatred of the victim's creed, colour, sex, sexual orientation, etc. then the law has to recognize this as a motive.
Yickbob 2 months ago