There has been much discussion in political circles, and in the general population about hate crimes. There have been several well publicized hate crimes in the last months.
I even had a discussion with someone who wanted to form a “governmental militia-type unit” to wipe out the hate groups.
On one side of the fence, making penalties more stringent for “hate crimes” is legislating thought, and is strongly opposed.
On the other side, “hate crimes” are more heinous because they are motivated by prejudices, hatred, they are usually more organized, and “cheered” by hate groups who foster their agendas.
I don’t believe there is ANY sane human being (aside from members of groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and the myriad of other hate groups which slink around promulgating their cause) who would disagree that hate crimes are onerous.
Their members do not grow up in a vacuum. Their behavior is either learned and stems from a similar environment, or is a result of a misfit being accepted by a group of people (no matter how heinous) which accepts them to increase their number.
Is a murder a murder? Or is a murder motivated by the philosophies of a hate group worse. Should the penalties be more strict, swift and sure for the perpetrators of hate crimes that result in bodily harm than they are for your basic convenience store robbery which resulted in the same outcome?
I am of the firm belief that we cannot attempt to legislate morality. One man’s pornography is another man’s art. One man’s vice is another man’s pleasure, one person’s definition of love is different from some other… (with the exceptions of course which need not even be stated of people who prey on children). There are penalties for rape, murder, assault, battery, and other human injury in place. Are they sufficient for hate crimes?
Or are hate crimes so heinous to their very core that they should be punished differently?
An interesting question….with many different answers.Powered by Sidelines