Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[bodie]

A 'hate crime enhancement' is when a court imposes a tougher sentence on a crime with a racial or any other prejudice motivation.

For example
I take a can of spray paint and spray graffiti all over a mosque  -  a court might issue me some community service or a fine.

but

If that graffiti read  "Allah sucks cock"  or  "shit on the Islam"  then the court might decide I have to go to prison and in doing so are using a hate crime enhancement.

Fair or not?

["couldbecousin"]

  I really don't know.  If I were a minority person and someone stabbed me on the street,
   I'd be just as injured whether he stabbed me for my color or stabbed me out of hatred of
   my personality or something I had done.  Never having been a minority person, I don't know
   whether the hate crime enhancement would make me feel safer or more vindicated.     

[Al Swearegen]

I voted Yes

[TheoK]

It's unfair and stupid, because all crimes where you insult, threaten and hurt people and destroy property just out of the lust to destroy are comitted out of hate. It doesn't matter if the victim is a Jew, a Muslim, a gay person or you just happen to dislike the size of his feet or the colour of his sweater or the fact that he's better in school or at work.

[bodie]

I put i don't know.  Cus i really am on the fence with it.


I am trying to stir up some debate.   

[TheoK]

 

[odeon]

Yes, there's a world of difference between the pointless graffiti kids spray on any wall and the kind of hate crime that just happens to use graffiti as means to an end.

[Icequeen]

Voted yes also.

I think if someone does something that drives you to hate them and you hurt them as a result, that's one thing...but if you hate them just because of their race or nationality and feel the need to hurt them because of it, you need some serious help.

[Parts]

Generally I would side with no they are not fair.  For one   they don't seem to be applied consistently but rather politically.

[bodie]

The only objection i have is the possibility that it might be used too readily.  Just say the victim of a robbery might believe they were a target of racial hatred, and convey this to police and it may have had nothing to do with hate.  It may have been a totally random attack. 

I think mostly it is entirely obvious, though, that a hate crime has been committed.

['andersom']

Not voting yet, due to similar thoughts as Parts has.

Kids putting "neutral" graffiti on a mosque have all chance of being accused of doing it as a hate crime.

So, when is something considered to be a hate crime.

Is stabbing someone, who is gay, a hate crime, or, does there need to be more than "just" the stabbing. And, if there is more than "just" the stabbing, could not that be used as an extra on the crime, without categorising it as a hatecrime.

[Pyraxis]

I'm sick of seeing minorities compete for victim status, and non-minorities scouring their souls for any sign of differences so that they can come up with a new minority label and get their share of the cake. Because sometimes it is cake and not legitimate socioeconomic disadvantage. Besides if there are enough of you to get together in a group and advocate for your group's interest, you're not falling all the way through the cracks and somebody else still is. So hate crime enhancements give the appearance of punishing discrimination without actually solving the problem.

[TheoK]

I think this is the first time ever that i plussed Pyraxis.

[Parts]

Generally if you kill or harm someone you don't like them so would not all crimes be hate crimes?  Say I go out and rob and beat up someone it's not like I could say 'well I only did it for the money' and it would be okay. 

[TheoK]

Generally if you kill or harm someone you don't like them so would not all crimes be hate crimes?  Say I go out and rob and beat up someone it's not like I could say 'well I only did it for the money' and it would be okay.

Exactly.