Would you advocate a "hate crimes" bill where you live?

I don't see how either crime is any different from the other.

They should both be punished equally, but equally at a maximum level.

I do support distinguishing between targetted crimes and "ordinary" crime because crimes targetted against a particular group of people make life more threatening and full of anxiety and fear for those people than others. Specifically, because attackers do target others simply because they are gay, or because they are black or because they are Jewish (for example) people who are gay, black or Jewish feel less safe and need to live more carefully than most others. It's my hope that if punishment is more severe, then these crimes would become less prevalent and people who are of a group that suffers from targetted crime would be able to live less fearful lives.

I don't know, I mean, a crime is a crime, and the punishment should be based on the amount of beating, not the motive, but on the other hand, it does kind of make sense...I don't know.

I don't believe the above example created an accurate account of what a hate crime bill would do.

This seemed biased to me.

They have a law like that here. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I lean towards not supporting it. I don't think that longer prison sentences will do anything to solve the underlying problem. It is a typical government response to a problem. They just want to be seen as "doing something" about problems, whether it actually accomplishes anything or not.

Hate crimes need legal status. I think it's a separate question from that of sentencing.

both attackers should be dragged into a parking lot late at night and be raped and beaten by a big mexican guy named Gonzo who has genital warts and bad breath then their pictures should be posted in a special section of the Sunday paper. In My Most Humble Opinon.

The hate crime furor is but a way to mind control against the white people. I feel a crime is a crime; assault, etc. no matter what the motive. A guilty party should be punished. I resent this "hate crime" rage especially when it shows bias, with no common sense. A white person can't say anything to a person of color, yet a person of color can say anything to a white person, somehow, I think good common sense has escaped this country.

Hear, hear! If I want to smack down some sassy nigger who's got the gall to speak to me in public, I don't see how the law needs any say in the matter one way or t'other. An' just let him call me a cracka! I've got three cousins workin' in the sherrif's office just itchin' to beat some good common sense back into that tar-baby.

Well... we can view a hate crime as containing both a criminal act, like mugging, and speech. This speech is threatening, but also contains a message. We can punish them under the laws for threatening, right? So they'd be punished for something they already did, and we'd just need some precedent instead of A Bad Law. (Think ADA, RICO and COPA. Especially ADA. This law would be A Bad Idea, wouldn't be applied fairly, and wouldn't solve the problem it originally was aimed at.)

Of course, no one likes this solution, because there's no big law to rally around. Foo on all of you.

It it the crime that should be punished, not the motivation. If a man is killed for a wallet or because he is black, should that determine the punishment? Is murdering for money more or less condemnable than murdering someone for the colour of their skin?

I have to agree with you on thta one.

One thing I don't understand however. How come people like North and myself are often seen as racist because we feel this way?

Hey, the same applies to anyone who is not pro-multicultural; they must be racist. Not pro-gay? Homophobic. Anti-immigration? Xenophobic. And so on and so on...

It's not that I'm not either of those things. I am very pro-multicultural and all that. I just think the Hate Crimes bill is a bad idea.

I know, I'm just giving you other examples of people's assumptions.