Hate Crimes and their Double Standards

[DBoons Ghost]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/01/19/2009-01-19_mom_of_slain_marine_sgt_jan_pawel_pietrz.html

Please read the above story and any others you might find on this horrific crime.

Explain to me why this isn't a hate crime.

[Castillo]

Because when someone in the military does something bad it can be excused because they fought for our country and probably had a kind of post traumatic stress disorder. Duh.

[DBoons Ghost]

This has nothing to do with the fact that they were all in the military.

[Castillo]

I know I was just being facetious. I really don't have an answer on this sorry bro.

[JohnXDoe3]

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation

that is one of the reasons

are you saying it should be viewed as a "hate crime" simply because the accused are black and the victims weren't? or one of them wasn't. so now whenever someone commits an act of violence upon someone of a different race, in spite of motive, its a hate crime?

thats kind of absurd

Prosecutors say the motive was robbery. thats not good enough for you?

pfft

just fanning the flames....

[spitfirejunky]

The article didn't give any details about the crime except that it was robbery. I actually also have trouble believing it was only robbery. And what was the context of the crime?

[Mr. Ron]

punishing people more because of their hatred for a particular aspect of a person is stupid. Hate is hate.

[DBoons Ghost]

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation

that is one of the reasons

are you saying it should be viewed as a "hate crime" simply because the accused are black and the victims weren't? or one of them wasn't. so now whenever someone commits an act of violence upon someone of a different race, in spite of motive, its a hate crime?

thats kind of absurd

Prosecutors say the motive was robbery. thats not good enough for you?

pfft

just fanning the flames....

Way to contradict yourself all in one post.

If the motive was robbery, tie them up and rob them.

Why torture and rape the woman and then kill them both?

[JohnXDoe3]

The article didn't give any details about the crime except that it was robbery. I actually also have trouble believing it was only robbery. And what was the context of the crime?
well if you can PROVE it was a hate crime thats another story. and it can often be proven. sometimes it can't be and so you just have to go with what is in front of you. i don't think its wise just to speculate based on ones race that it is a hate crime

i also don't think its wise when some blacks or w/e want something labeled a hate crime when the roles of race are reversed, so to speak (white on black crime)

but we shouldn't look to abuse the definition just because we may want a stiffer sentence or w/e

a crime is a crime imo. some more malicious then others. tbh i would like to see "hate crime" taken off the books and all be judged equally according to the actual crime committed. otherwise we just get this silly "tit for tat" or w/e like we have itt

its just silly

"oh they are black must be a hate crime." "oh they are white its a hate crime"

ok fine, maybe. but the color of ones skin is not proof of a hate crime one way or another, but evidence of a hate crime would be. so far, their is no evidence here apparently

[JohnXDoe3]

Way to contradict yourself all in one post.

If the motive was robbery, tie them up and rob them.

Why torture and rape the woman and then kill them both?
i did not contradict myself

torture and rape? fine. sometimes it starts as robbery and goes to torture and rape. and i don't see how torture and rape constitutes a hate crime according to that definition i posted. torture and rape exist outside of hate crimes. always have

hey, i didn't make the law, but it seems pretty clear. and it should not be abused or twisted

if its a so called hate crime, prove it

[DBoons Ghost]

A group of white kids recently beat a black kid up (didn't even spend a night in the hospital) because they caught him going from car to car looking in the windows. He was about to break one of them when they happened upon him. Using no racial slurs, they beat him up. They got hate crime charges on the kids and their lives are ruined as a result. The black kid admitted none of them used any racial slurs.

The prosecution assumed it was racial profiling since the kid wasn't doing anything wrong by going car to car looking in the windows like a crackhead thief would.

Evidence is never a standard. It's personal bias by these prosecutors.

[DBoons Ghost]

well if you can PROVE it was a hate crime thats another story. and it can often be proven. sometimes it can't be and so you just have to go with what is in front of you. i don't think its wise just to speculate based on ones race that it is a hate crime

i also don't think its wise when some blacks or w/e want something labeled a hate crime when the roles of race are reversed, so to speak (white on black crime)

but we shouldn't look to abuse the definition just because we may want a stiffer sentence or w/e

a crime is a crime imo. some more malicious then others. tbh i would like to see "hate crime" taken off the books and all be judged equally according to the actual crime committed. otherwise we just get this silly "tit for tat" or w/e like we have itt

its just silly

"oh they are black must be a hate crime." "oh they are white its a hit crime"

ok fine, maybe. but the color of one skin is not proof of a hate crime one way or another, but evidence of a hate crime would be. so far, their is no evidence here apparently


For all those words you sure don't say anything worthwhile.

I bet if 4 white kids killed some filthy spic you'd be singing a different tune eh? None of the hate crime cases prosecuted in any jurisdiction have yet to have evidence supporting there was hate. It's generally assumed because of the color on color crime or vice versa. If racial slurs are used of course it helps. How would we know what these kids said if the victims are dead?

Clearly in the case I stated they hated on this white dude and his black wife because she was a black woman who married a white man. Otherwise they'd have robbed them and moved on. Rape, torture and murder though? Hmmm..

Get your head out of your biased ***.

[JohnXDoe3]

A group of white kids recently beat a black kid up (didn't even spend a night in the hospital) because they caught him going from car to car looking in the windows. He was about to break one of them when they happened upon him. Using no racial slurs, they beat him up. They got hate crime charges on the kids and their lives are ruined as a result. The black kid admitted none of them used any racial slurs.

The prosecution assumed it was racial profiling since the kid wasn't doing anything wrong by going car to car looking in the windows like a crackhead thief would.

Evidence is never a standard. It's personal bias by these prosecutors.
well that is one case and it should be looked at. (and i saw in the news it will be)

but starting a whole "two wrongs make a right" thing about it doesn't solve anything

[DBoons Ghost]

I am asking for opinions from everyone, and you gave yours. You can go now. Stop ruining the thread with your 1000 word essays full of nothing at all.

[JohnXDoe3]

For all those words you sure don't say anything worthwhile.

I bet if 4 white kids killed some filthy spic you'd be singing a different tune eh? None of the hate crime cases prosecuted in any jurisdiction have yet to have evidence supporting there was hate. It's generally assumed because of the color on color crime or vice versa. If racial slurs are used of course it helps. How would we know what these kids said if the victims are dead?

Clearly in the case I stated they hated on this white dude and his black wife because she was a black woman who married a white man. Otherwise they'd have robbed them and moved on. Rape, torture and murder though? Hmmm..

Get your head out of your biased ***.
you can't say that. you have NO IDEA why those men did what they did. if it is hate crime PROVE IT

simple as that

you're the biased one here. and you're biased because you're pissed off and your crystal ball into the hearts and minds of the motives of others is racially tainted

they will get what they have coming if convicted. keep racial motivation out of it unless you can prove it

[spitfirejunky]

punishing people more because of their hatred for a particular aspect of a person is stupid. Hate is hate.

The criminal's state of mind is always used to affect sentencing. I don't see why bias crimes should be an exception.

A group of white kids recently beat a black kid up (didn't even spend a night in the hospital) because they caught him going from car to car looking in the windows. He was about to break one of them when they happened upon him. Using no racial slurs, they beat him up. They got hate crime charges on the kids and their lives are ruined as a result. The black kid admitted none of them used any racial slurs.

The prosecution assumed it was racial profiling since the kid wasn't doing anything wrong by going car to car looking in the windows like a crackhead thief would.

Evidence is never a standard. It's personal bias by these prosecutors.

If the kids had half a lawyer he/she could appeal this like nothing. But you're right, this is a pretty bad mistake.

Guess those marines lucked out by having a proper prosecutor.

[DBoons Ghost]

you can't say that. you have NO IDEA why those men did what they did. if it is hate crime PROVE IT

simple as that

you're the biased one here. and you're biased because you're pissed off and your crystal ball into the hearts and minds of the motives of others is racially tainted

they will get what they have coming if convicted. keep racial motivation out of it unless you can prove it

Dude are you this stupid? You are aren't you. Sure I'm pissed off. I beg you to investigate any of the hate crimes prosecuted since the law was introduced and I beg YOU to prove any of them were racially hate motivated. Even fag bashing cases. I beg you to prove any of them were racially motivated or whatever kind of hate you want to pick.

[Mr. Ron]

The criminal's state of mind is always used to affect sentencing. I don't see why bias crimes should be an exception.



in that case crimes of passion, crimes of a brother killing his own brother, killing over money should all receive different sentencing?

I just do not think it matters if someone kills someone over their race compared to someone simply killing out of hatred. Hatred is hatred.

[spitfirejunky]

I bet if 4 white kids killed some filthy spic you'd be singing a different tune eh? None of the hate crime cases prosecuted in any jurisdiction have yet to have evidence supporting there was hate. It's generally assumed because of the color on color crime or vice versa. If racial slurs are used of course it helps. How would we know what these kids said if the victims are dead?

I think prosecutors suspect it's a hate crime usually by process of elimination. They try to establish the usual intent first and when there's nothing feasible they can only assume that it was a hate crime.

For example, if those four white kids didn't rob the "filthy spic" and attacked him completely unprovoked (i.e. an autopsy was able to conclude the kid was ambushed) then what the hell else could they have been thinking?

[JohnXDoe3]

Dude are you this stupid? You are aren't you. Sure I'm pissed off. I beg you to investigate any of the hate crimes prosecuted since the law was introduced and I beg YOU to prove any of them were racially hate motivated. Even fag bashing cases. I beg you to prove any of them were racially motivated or whatever kind of hate you want to pick.
not half as stupid as you are apparently

its a case by case judgment. and it should need to be proven. if it can't be or hasn't been in some cases the system and the definition of hate crime is deeply flawed and should be done away with until certain criteria can be met without question

your convoluted reasoning of "well it was a hate crime for whitey now it must be a hate crime for darkie too" is just ignorant

if the system and definition of said crimes are as flawed as you think you should call for the end of said laws, not to have others penalized under them

[spitfirejunky]

in that case crimes of passion, crimes of a brother killing his own brother, killing over money should all receive different sentencing?

I just do not think it matters if someone kills someone over their race compared to someone simply killing out of hatred. Hatred is hatred.

I wouldn't know what you mean by "hatred" but most states abstract all hate crimes to bias crimes. If a homosexual was killed for being a homosexual, that would be a hate crime in most states as well.

[Aaron]

Being a racist isn't a crime, it's the activity that someone undertakes that is. A sentence shouldn't be impacted upon if someone is racist, whether it's their motivation or not. Murder is murder, no matter the motivation, etc etc.

[Mr. Ron]

I wouldn't know what you mean by "hatred" but most states abstract all hate crimes to bias crimes. If a homosexual was killed for being a homosexual, that would be a hate crime in most states as well.
I know it would, but I'm just saying that I don't think it matters if a person is killed for their race or for cheating, or for how they think etc etc. The end result is always the same. The reason for knowing why the person was killed would be nice to know but either way the murderer is getting a stiff jail time or the death penalty.

[DBoons Ghost]

not half as stupid as you are apparently

its a case by case judgment. and it should need to be proven. if it can't be or hasn't been in some cases the system and the definition of hate crime is deeply flawed and should be done away with until certain criteria can be met without question

your convoluted reasoning of "well it was a hate crime for whitey now it must be a hate crime for darkie too" is just ignorant

if the system and definition of said crimes are as flawed as you think you should call for the end of said laws, not to have others penalized under them

That's not my reasoning. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you if you can't see this for what it is.

All you're doing is regurgitating crap you have no idea about if not for wikipedia. You a lawyer? A cop? Ever was either? You know anything more about hate crimes other then what wikipedia is telling you? You sheep.

You are drawing the conclusion that I am all about an eye for an eye in this when that's clearly not the case. I asked people for their opinions and they are giving them. You gave yours. Thanks. I'm done with you. Surely continue to post if you feel you have anything else to add that bears any relevance outside of your ignorant conclusions based on a quick snippet you just read.

[thedeadwalk!]

The article didn't give any details about the crime except that it was robbery. I actually also have trouble believing it was only robbery. And what was the context of the crime?
Actually, it mentions:
The killers tied up and tortured the couple. They violated Quiana repeatedly. Then John shot them both in the head, police said.
As far as crime trends go, torture and rape are very personally motivated. Robbers also tend to stick to petty crime, not committing murder.

As for the prosecutors not calling it a hate crime, this is probably to make the case easier to convict. Proving racial motivation is hard even in easy cases.

[DBoons Ghost]

Actually, it mentions:

As far as crime statistics go, torture (for whatever stats are on this) and rape are very personally motivated. Robbers also tend to stick to petty crime, not committing murder.

As for the prosecutors not calling it a hate crime, this is probably to make the case easier to convict. Proving racial motivation is hard even in easy cases.

Thanks for actually reading the article.

My point is it's always quick for them to prove racial motivation when both sides live to tell the tale.

So what happens now when the only people who can shed light are violently tortured and murdered? Motivation for which is clearly what was stated above.

[spitfirejunky]

Being a racist isn't a crime, it's the activity that someone undertakes that is. A sentence shouldn't be impacted upon if someone is racist, whether it's their motivation or not. Murder is murder, no matter the motivation, etc etc.

Intent requires that you take into account the murderer's state of mind, and racism must be established as intent if that was what motivated the crime.

I know it would, but I'm just saying that I don't think it matters if a person is killed for their race or for cheating, or for how they think etc etc. The end result is always the same. The reason for knowing why the person was killed would be nice to know but either way the murderer is getting a stiff jail time or the death penalty.

Are you trying to say that it's redundant to tack on a hate crime to the list of charges even though murder by racism is effectively the same as murder by any other intent? If so, I'm inclined to agree but that law has a lot to do with history.

[Mr. Ron]

Intent requires that you take into account the murderer's state of mind, and racism must be established as intent if that was what motivated the crime.



Are you trying to say that it's redundant to tack on a hate crime to the list of charges even though murder by racism is effectively the same as murder by any other intent? If so, I'm inclined to agree but that law has a lot to do with history.
yes.

[JohnXDoe3]

That's not my reasoning. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you if you can't see this for what it is.

All you're doing is regurgitating crap you have no idea about if not for wikipedia. You a lawyer? A cop? Ever was either? You know anything more about hate crimes other then what wikipedia is telling you? You sheep.

You are drawing the conclusion that I am all about an eye for an eye in this when that's clearly not the case. I asked people for their opinions and they are giving them. You gave yours. Thanks. I'm done with you. Surely continue to post if you feel you have anything else to add that bears any relevance outside of your ignorant conclusions based on a quick snippet you just read.

no you're not all about "eye for an eye" but their is no double standard at work here

and where i get my info from is my business and what i think is what i think. i don't have to validate my opinions or ideas to you, nor do i have to leave this thread

if it is a hate crime...PROVE IT. black or white, case by case.

but you can't so you are being a big baby

talk about a sheep. you're as white a sheep as i've ever encountered

and no, their is no double standard here. its all in your racially motivated head

[DBoons Ghost]

Please go away and let the smart people talk. You're wrong, and will be proved so just like always.

White people are the only ones who commit hate crimes, and only white people are racists.

This is the world we live in.

I'm not white persay so I don't care about any of that.

[Aaron]

Intent requires that you take into account the murderer's state of mind, and racism must be established as intent if that was what motivated the crime.
Intend is only determined so that you can differentiate between murder and manslaughter. Racism shouldn't be a factor beyond that determination and shouldn't extend into influencing sentencing.

[JohnXDoe3]

Please go away and let the smart people talk. You're wrong, and will be proved so just like always.

so go ahead and prove it

i never thought you a fool DBoon, but you are coming close

unfortunately i'm not a "dumb teenager" like you call so many here that you try to paint as idiots because you think you have more life experience and know better

you have no argument here. you are trying to take individual cases tried by individual lawyers in different courts and under different judges and circumstances and lump them all together for your own pathetic racially motivated reasoning

that is obvious and it doesn't make any sense

you have no argument

what should i say? "oh Dboon you are so right what a double standard charge 'em with a hate crime because in another case 2000 miles away some white kids were charged with a hate crime"

that is full of shi.t. and maybe it is full of shi.t both ways. but its still full of shi.t

[spitfirejunky]

Actually, it mentions:

As far as crime trends go, torture and rape are very personally motivated. Robbers also tend to stick to petty crime, not committing murder.

As for the prosecutors not calling it a hate crime, this is probably to make the case easier to convict. Proving racial motivation is hard even in easy cases.

Yeah I knew that.

Did they know the victims? Was it premeditated (did they find out where he lived, etc.)?

[thedeadwalk!]

Yeah I knew that.

Did they know the victims? Was it premeditated (did they find out where he lived, etc.)?
It said the victim was the boss of two of the four assailants.

[spitfirejunky]

It said the victim was the boss of two of the four assailants.

Ah, John and Miller.

[spitfirejunky]

Intend is only determined so that you can differentiate between murder and manslaughter. Racism shouldn't be a factor beyond that determination and shouldn't extend into influencing sentencing.

yes.

I think the added charge was inspired by the public if anything. There's a social stigma towards all hate crimes (harrassment, etc.) including those involving murder. I guess historically this kind of motivation caused a hell lot of suffering so it seems necessary.

[DBoons Ghost]

so go ahead and prove it

i never thought you a fool DBoon, but you are coming close



I am a fool though. I don't know the law as well as I would like. I am of course on the side of this being a hate crime but I could be wrong. If I am I will be pissed and accept it. They might get the death penalty so it might not matter.

My ignorance is why I come here and ask so I can learn.

You on the other hand just outright fail.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

it is a double standard jxd that if the races were reversed and it was 4 white guys killing a black guy there is no doubt that it would be a hate crime in the same court
im not saying that any of it should be hate crimes but that is a double standard fyi

[JohnXDoe3]

it is a double standard jxd that if the races were reversed and it was 4 white guys killing a black guy there is no doubt that it would be a hate crime in the same court
im not saying that any of it should be hate crimes but that is a double standard fyi
but you can't say that for certain in all cases

the circumstances of the crime would have to be worked out. if these 4 white guys killed a black man during the commission of a robbery or burglary i doubt very seriously it could be proven a hate crime. especially if no evidence was found of bigotry in their backgrounds. or perhaps even evidence and / or testimony which would contradict a hate motive could be brought forth

now if they had a history of violence against races other then their own, evidence could be presented, testimony could be given, or they were part of a white supremacist group and beat the hell out of some black guy until he was dead with no other apparent motive, i would say its pretty clear its a hate crime

listen, i don't even think "hate crimes" should exist. its just something to stiffen the sentence against some. and unfortunately its now being placed where it shouldn't to stiffen those sentences and that is wrong no matter what color the perps are. the punishment should fit the crime no matter race, color, or creed

the problem i had with dboons initial post and the example he put forth was simply its weakness. this doesn't sound like a "hate crime" and that is the problem. and so it shouldn't be. if it can be proven in this case, fine. but if not its not an issue of a double standard across the board, and it might even be indicative of the system working right. its just the color of the skin of the accused happens to be black in this case. and it is as unjust to charge them with a hate crime as it would be to charge a group of whites with a hate crime under the same circumstances. so lets not play that game at all i say

i'm simply going by what the article said. the prosecution is not charging then with a hate crime. and they are bringing the case. if they could, i believe they would. and i honestly doubt, since one of the victims was white and one was black, if the color of the accused skin was white they would be charged with a hate crime

this was a sex crime. a crime of murder and torture. it doesn't mean it was racially motivated pure and simple

now if a better example were brought forth with even a shred of evidence this were a hate crime and the prosecution said "we are treating this as a hate crime becuase of this and that" i would think 'fine, its a hate crime'

but that isn't the case in THIS circumstance. it might be in others. so why force the issue where one doesn't appear to exist?

give me some better examples of where a double standard is and i'd be more then happy to entertain them. but this is a piss poor example, at best

[Mr. Ron]

well I think its pretty obvious that blacks don't get called out on "hate crimes" as much as if situations were switched a white person would.

[K oko]

because there is no justice there never was people will do horrible things and some will get away with it because of who they are or what they do or how much money they have or due to the circumstances sorry but that is how the world is it sucks and it will never change

i dont like to go out because i know how crooked the cops are around here i know what they do i know they have beaten innocent people and arrested them on false charges, planted drugs on them and framed them. hell one cop killed someone in broad daylight for money and that was the only thing that finally got the federal government to step in and take a look at how corrupt this city is but they didnt do a damn thing about it

so yeah its a horrific crime but i see it all the time i hate it i wish it didnt happen but it does and i cant do a thing about it

[jaredong]

Discrimination is terrible regardless of race.

But, I strongly disagree with the statement that "white on black" crime always automatically counts as a hate crime. Here are some statistics i dug around the internet.

Lets take 2005

Total Number of Murder Victim/Offender Relationship, by Race and Sex,
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html
White on Black Homicides: 230
Black on White Homicides: 516

Number of Hate Crime Murder Victims by Offense type and Motivation
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table7.htm
Anti Black Murder/Manslaughter: 2
Anti White Murder/Manslaughter: 1

Clearly, "white people murdering black people" does not always automatically counts as a hate crime.

[K oko]

yeah we got crazy black people preaching kill whitey on the streets all the time but that isnt racist or anything but if the KKK were to rally there be a riot and theyd burn the entire city down so whatever i think they are all ****ing retarded racists no matter what color they are

[McP3000]

hate crimes shouldnt exist. motives shouldn't matter, only actions.

[K oko]

crime shouldnt exist but knowing why people are motivated to do what they do is important if you are going to try to do something about it but we dont want to prevent crimes because that would mean no free prison labor pools and big money being kicked around to police forces to wage all the wars they want on society, we couldnt justify our elitism if we actually valued liberty and equality and all those other stupid ideas that nobody actually believes in right fuk that ****

[siva_chair]

Reminds me of the Carr brothers case.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Gouge their eyes out, cut off their arms and legs, inject them with the HIV virus, and have gays with syphilis rape them daily, and then as they're about to succumb to the AIDS, inject antifreeze into their veins. And let them rot with a horrible painful death.

[K oko]

in the backwoods of texas torturing criminal ******s is still seen as acceptable to the devout and holy united christian empire of the USA heil jesus brother

[YellowRoseofTexas]

No injecting murderers with antifreeze should be standard procedure.

[freedom police got me]

Blacks can't be racist cause they are victims of racial prejudice for yrz
Whites made them slaves so they deserve this
Black and white is perfectly ok for many blacks unless the guy is the one who is white. so other blacks killing that interracial couple is only coincidence

[DBoons Ghost]

Blacks can't be racist cause they are victims of racial prejudice for yrz
Whites made them slaves so they deserve this
Black and white is perfectly ok for many blacks unless the guy is the one who is white. so other blacks killing that interracial couple is only coincidence

Nice troll.

:thumb:

[Light Fantastic]

I just do not think it matters if someone kills someone over their race compared to someone simply killing out of hatred. Hatred is hatred.
hate crimes shouldnt exist. motives shouldn't matter, only actions.
imprisonment is to protect society

people who kill their wife for having an affair are way less of a threat to society than people who kill based on race

so of course its different

[freedom police got me]

Nice troll.

:thumb:

sad truth eh

[McP3000]

imprisonment is to protect society

people who kill their wife for having an affair are way less of a threat to society than people who kill based on race

so of course its different
the government shouldn't have the right to judge people based on motives. motives are nothing more than ideas, and the crime is the enactment of that idea. We should punish the enactment and its danger to society, but we should not go beyond that threshold.

[Shady Ultima]

It's sad to say that it is highly more likely that a person who is white and commits a crime against a black man will get a hate crime vs the opposite.

And (off topic) but what is with this whole support for minorities thing? Why can only whites be racist? Why do jobs HAVE to (BY LAW) have a certain amount of minorities working, EVEN if they're UNQUALIFIED?

[McP3000]

because of EQUALITY

[gregulus]

because of EQUALITY

It was more of an ad hoc solution to a looming problem. Instead of actually working to address the problem of minorities being (in general) more socio-economically disadvantaged, they opted to take the easy way out and pass a couple of easy laws that, in a lot of ways, fail miserably.

[spitfirejunky]

the government shouldn't have the right to judge people based on motives. motives are nothing more than ideas, and the crime is the enactment of that idea. We should punish the enactment and its danger to society, but we should not go beyond that threshold.

So someone who murders someone for kicks deserves the same sentence as someone who murders someone for revenge?

[Mr. Ron]

the end result is the same

[PerpetualBurn]

The motivation of a person is relevant to the severity of the crime.

Let's say some kid grows up and shoots their abusive child-molesting father, I would say it's worthy of a lesser sentence than someone who guns down a black because they don't like blacks.

[DJ Karl Marx]

the government shouldn't have the right to judge people based on motives. motives are nothing more than ideas, and the crime is the enactment of that idea. We should punish the enactment and its danger to society, but we should not go beyond that threshold.
well, since the government shouldn't do that, should they do this? and.. judge people solely by actions? HM?!!
motive has exterior manifestions. the past between the perpetrator and victim, physical evidence

[spitfirejunky]

the end result is the same

And... ?

[PunkItUp]

i think we can agree we all hate crimes so whats all this fuss!

[ATC]

the government shouldn't have the right to judge people based on motives. motives are nothing more than ideas, and the crime is the enactment of that idea. We should punish the enactment and its danger to society, but we should not go beyond that threshold.

It's counterproductive/impossible to separate crime from motivation, especially if, as you're saying, we ought to take into account "danger to society."

[Iskandar]

To say motive doesn't matter in crime is silly. Do crimes committed under duress deserve the same punishment?