Am I Racist?

[Firecat]

What happened to that person sounds like an injustice. If the facts of the case were him defending himself and that other person being an ass, a hate law should not even come into the picture because it had nothing to do with race.

Say some punk kid breaks some car window just for the heck of it. What kind of punishment would he receive? Probably a slap on the wrist.
Now, say some kid breaks a car window and scribbles on it..."die ******"....would that same punishment fit? Is it just the action that was the problem or the attention behind it?
You see, the person in the first might be considered a youth that needs some discipline....you know, kids getting in trouble. Whereas the person in the second scenario is probably a "sicko"

Take murder for instance. Why do we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree? It deals with intention and there are different punishments, because it does matter.

[zenkidori]

What happened to that person sounds like an injustice. If the facts of the case were him defending himself and that other person being an ass, a hate law should not even come into the picture because it had nothing to do with race.

It was an injustice, but because the "attacker" was white, the "victim" was black and the black kid said he was "attacked" because he was black it's a hate crime and all legal. No matter what witnesses said or what was said about the character of the black kid, the white one was punished. What's worse is that incident just created racial tension where there wasn't really any to begin with. In addition to that, the kid who started it all was so alienated he changed schools later in the year.

Writing something like that is more than breaking a window in the first place anyway, it's called harassment. No need for special laws there.

Murder degrees aren't based on race, religion, creed or background, that is the difference between a degree and a race law.

If races and sexes are to be equal, they should be treated equally.

[zenkidori]

You see, the person in the first might be considered a youth that needs some discipline....you know, kids getting in trouble. Whereas the person in the second scenario is probably a "sicko"

I missed this part, and I feel that distinction is both incorrect and possibly dangerous. when I was younger I saw many rebellious youths go thru a racist phase. This was indeed a phase they grew out of when they came to know better. Being a young, angry, ignorant person does not make you a sicko, it makes you a kid.

[Firecat]

Murder degrees aren't based on race, religion, creed or background, that is the difference between a degree and a race law.

Point is, motive and intent play a part. A crime is not simply just a crime.

If races and sexes are to be equal, they should be treated equally.

One could argue that sexual harrasment laws create inequality as well. That doesn't mean the laws should be abolished, but made more encompassing. Legislation applies to all, so whites should be protected by hate crime laws as well as men being protected by sexual harrasment laws. That should make things equal.

I put the words "Sicko" in quotation marks because I could not think of a better word at the time. Kids can go through their racists phases, fine...but the moment they turn their prejudice into a crime...they should be duly punished for it. In fact, I see hate crime laws as serving a preventative purpose as well.

I can only think of one good argument against hate crime laws, and that would be the idea of criminalizing thought. However, if there is clear evidence that a person acted out of some sort of prejudice, it shouldn't be an issue.

[zenkidori]

I have never seen an instance of a hate crime law preventing a crime where a normal law wouldn't. You seem to forget that any hate crime is a crime itself in the first place, there is no need to add the distinction of race, sex, creed or background.

Any law that gives favor to any race in any instance is itself racist and unjust. If I kill a white man because I hate him and get sent to jail for life, why should it be any different if I kill a black man because I hate him? Is the white man's life less valuable to society? Will I learn a lesson other than the justice system is hypocritical?

[Firecat]

That's why I'm saying that the law can exist and be applied equally. White or black, you should be protected under it. The point of the hate crime law is to have stiffer penalties for offenders, perhaps in an effort to curb hate related crimes.

[zenkidori]

Why even have that law if it will be applied evenly? That would be superfluous.

[Firecat]

Stiffer penalties. That's why it shouldn't apply to crimes like murder because the punishment is already severe.

[zenkidori]

Why tho? What would the reason be behind it? It's not helping anything nor preventing anything. AFAIK hate crime laws only apply to violent crime anyway, aren't the penalties stiff enough in the first place? The entire premise is completely pointless.

[Firecat]

This is getting too repetitive now. I do think they can be preventative and should apply in relation to certain crimes, not all. I don't see any harm in having them, if they stop even one crime occuring out of pure hatred and ignorance....that's good enough.

[zenkidori]

They don't stop anything tho, hate crimes are either crimes of passion, in which the person wasn't thinking about the consequences, or the perp doesn't believe they will be caught anyway. anything that can be classified as a hate crime, murder, rape, assault, attempted murder etc. is already bad enough and carry sufficient penalties such that a distinction based on race is completely pointless, racist and hypocritical.