Do “hate crime” awareness campaigns derail justice?

One of the biggest problems when taking legal measures to change matters is the fact that this does not mean that peoples minds are changed.

A person who feels strongly about,say, homosexuality will not suddenly become in favour of it, just because it is made legal.

There is no place in any society for hate but it is a fact of life that there are numerous differing opinions on so many different matters that there is bound to be those who feel so strongly on a particular subject that they cannot control their actions, this of course in unacceptable but Iam afraid
unavoidable.

21 years Rock? In this country that would mean reduced to 10 years, and out in 8 for good behavior (nothing said about the BAD behaviour that got him in pokey in the first place!)

It is to be hoped that a relative/friend will be awaiting with a 4x4 inch fencepost when he gets out! (I hope BUBBA introduces himself aswell!!)

polyglide. Welcome to the forum.

When the first Race Relations Acts were introduced in the UK in the 1960s, I remember thinking that you can't change people's minds by legislation. Time has shown that you can. Most people obey most of the laws most of the time, otherwise society would cease to function, and when racism became illegal it gradually became unacceptable to the vast majority.

Something similar happened with motoring legislation. Most people see wearing a seatbelt as common sense now, not an impingement of their freedom. There was outrage when the breathalyser was introduced in 1967, but not many of us now consider it unreasonable that you should be tested if you are suspected of putting lives at risk by drink-driving.

Nobody has to be "in favour" of homosexuality. I'm not a homosexual and I'm neither for or against it, it just doesn't concern me. What I am against is finding reasons to discriminate against people, whether it be because of their age, gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.

Whatever happened to "common sense"? Some weird Laws have found their way onto the Statute Book (The Dangerous Dogs Act/Music in Pubs/Owners of a Guest-House obliged to admit all comers/Prayers illegal in Council), and the Man on the Clapham Omnibus knows this to be a load of nonsense on stilts just by looking at it, alongside with the Nation's inability to eject foreigners we don't want here.

The 'ole World's MAD, 'cept for thee and me.

Huh? Why, for God’ sake, should I know or should I care that someone, anyone, designated Larry King “gay?”

Motive has always been important for establishing guilt, as well as determining the appropriate sentence. To leave King's gayness out of the equation is, quite possibly, ignoring the motive. Why should we do that in cases involving hate crimes when we do not do it with any other case? That would make the law absolute, and that, my friend, is called "tyranny." In order to establish the proper punishment, the motive must be known. A person who killed for food because he is starving will most likely get a lighter sentence than someone who killed for money so he could buy another week's worth of cocaine. While both have committed the crime, the reason behind it plays a role. That's why we have multiple categories of the same crime: manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, etc, and yet we make no complaints. Giving a murderer a harsher sentence for committing a hate crime is no different than doing the same if the murderer killed a cop, a child, or a family. I simply fail to understand why there is an objection to classifying a crime as "motivated by hate" as opposed to varying sentences if the crime was motivated by lust, greed, jealousy, or vengeance.

A person who killed for food because he is starving will most likely get a lighter sentence than someone who killed for money so he could buy another week's worth of cocaine. While both have committed the crime, the reason behind it plays a role.

Is that like condemning the Alchoholic's condition, but failing to understand his thirst?

I do not think an alchoholic, or other self harmer falls into the same category as a Mwurdirur! (murderer)

The only alchoholic I knew personally was an uncle who served in WW2 and his "Shell Shock" was left untended, as was the case at that time. The disdain and contempt thrown at him was tangible.

".... an uncle who served in WW2 and his "Shell Shock" was left untended, as was the case at that time. The disdain and contempt thrown at him was tangible."

Disdain and contempt is not reserved for ex-soldiers. A Cypriot family who moved in to a home on a former Council Estate in Oxfordshire were literally hounded out by the "British" residents who reacted against their different appearance, language and kebab-type food-smells (!) Their fence was demolished panel-by-panel, their steel garage door forced open, and the local authority received endless complaints about trivia like the larger-size satellite dish which they erected to watch TV programmes in their own language. As Brit ex-pats do in Spain.

If I were to state that in my personal opinion, Adolf Hitler was correct and right in everything he did and believed in, including the murdering of 6 million Jews, then I guess I would be rather unpopular.

( needless to say that the above is most definately not my personal opinion )

But if it WAS my opinion, then why should there be a law which states that I am not allowed to hold such opinions. ?

Because some things are totaly irrefutable, like for example science, scientific evidence and substantiated historical fact, like the fact that Hitler and the Nazis murdered people simply because they were of a different religion, different race, held different political views or were of a different sexual orientation.

Politicians and law makers have decided in their wisdom that to promote such views as these should be outlawed, and the majority of people can see and understand why and agree.

Forget religion, do not even bring religion into this rational argument, instead think of the issues here in human terms; Is it right or fair to demonize another human because they were born with mixed up chromosones which makes them homosexual, purely by act of nature. ?

Of course it s not fair - its a damn right disgrace

It is totaly and moraly justified to have hate laws which make it a crime to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation, race, colour, gender or religion.

By making it ilegal we are sending a message telling people how society ought to be, and what it shouldent be.

The problem with putting forward excuses and reasons for a persons actions or feelings is ,where do you stop.

Of course when a new unfavourable law is suggested and then implimented, it may in time become acceptable to many but not all and in fact may be responsible for infuriating some to actions they may later regret.

If you say a person cannot help being homosexual then the same excuse can be made for every other perversion ( Iam neither for nor against } but if you are to make excuses for one, for reasons that it is not their fault where do you stop and who decides?
.

Yep, I am afraid the human race has some dispicable people of all clours and creeds etc.,

It is also a fact that there must be means of dealing with those who behave in an unacceptable manner, the problem being how and just what do the transgressers deserve to repay there debt to society.

The taking of a life is obviously the most unacceptable of crimes but is it just as unacceptable to kill the culprit ?.

My feelings on the matter it is not acceptable, however, I would give the offender the chance of living a spartan life in jail for the rest of their life or alternatively the chance to take a cyanide pill at any time they wish the choice being theirs.

And going on from that premise I would decide all further punishments taking into account the affect the crime had on the victim irrespective of the circumstances of the criminal the victim being of more concern.

There is far too much emphasis put on so called rehab, good; help those that need it but only AFTER they have paid their dues to society and not during, at the tax payers expense. We are presently paying the criminals
in one way or another and not punishing them.