quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

.....i've posted this before, but can't recall if i ever got an answer, so here goes again.

i do understand those who suggest that hate crimes could be prosecuted under existing legislation, rather than creating a new offence.........however, here's my point.

Was the Holocaust more than just mass murder? If we feel that events like that can be prosecuted as simple murder, then there is no need for hate crime legislation. If there is something more to it, if genocide qualitively differs from murder, then there is such a thing as hate crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

.....i've posted this before, but can't recall if i ever got an answer, so here goes again.

i do understand those who suggest that hate crimes could be prosecuted under existing legislation, rather than creating a new offence.........however, here's my point.

Was the Holocaust more than just mass murder? If we feel that events like that can be prosecuted as simple murder, then there is no need for hate crime legislation. If there is something more to it, if genocide qualitively differs from murder, then there is such a thing as hate crimes.

I understand what you are saying but what more could you do for murder than take their life. What difference does it make if the murderer took 1 life  or 1,000,000 lives...the most you can do is kill them once.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I think I get your point. But most people apposed to specific hate crime legislation don't deny the crime is a hate crime, but think there is no need for that legislation because the act is already covered by law.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

i see it as the difference between robbery, and robbery with violence.  A hate crime for me is a crime that has an added component....one that adds further injury to the victim and society due to its unique bigotted nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        I do not think we should have these laws, but since we do, it seems to me they only prolong and reinforce racial inequalities, unless they are applied with a single standard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AMaster
  It goes way beyond free speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     So what I'm getting here is an attitude that we need to preserve an institutional racist bias in how our laws are enforced.  Is that about right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

       I do not think we should have these laws, but since we do, it seems to me they only prolong and reinforce racial inequalities, unless they are applied with a single standard.

...i agree....but, as i think hate crimes do exist, then they ought to be applied in black on white situations as well as white on black. Seems to me the problem is not with the law per se, it is the application of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Is the purpose of the act to incite violence or to make a political statement?

Does the act carry any kind of implied or overt threat to a particular person or group?

What kind of history surrounds the act?

In the Palin example, it does not look like the message is a call to assassination. Also, as Palin is not in CA, much less Hollywood, there is no threat to her personally by the particular individual. Next, as a white woman, its hard to conceive of this act as either racially or sexually based --- as there is little if any current history to suggest such targeting in a political context.

Finally, Palin is a public figure, which like it or not, exposes her to a wider range of "free speech."

I don't think Obama in the noose here would constitute a hate crime either, for many of the same reasons -- but the history of assassinations of civil rights leaders: the Kennedys, MLK, and Malcolm X -- along with our history of lynching blacks -- puts an Obama situation in a different category. I would not call this systemic bias, either.