Kitzyma
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
The definition of hate crime victims is now being extended to different groups.
Personally, I'm against the whole concept of defining something as a hate crime. If someone beats me up, I don't give a toss whether he's done it as a bit of random fun, or to steal my wallet, or because I'm gay. I want the bastard caught and punished as severely as the law allows.
If a woman is raped, why should it matter whether it's because the perpetrator hates women and wants to dominate them, or whether he just can't be bothered to control his desire, or even because he wants to make as many babies as he can?
My view is that the punishment for a crime should depend on the amount of suffering of the victim, not on the reason for the crime. Of course, if the guy beating me up does it while calling me a disgusting queer, that may add to my suffering and thereby deserve a more severe sentence.
Trying to get a jury to really understand what was going on the the mind of the criminal is fraught with problems. Maybe he doesn't hate queers and is beating me up for another reason but adding the 'queer' insults because he wants to cause me more anguish. Then perhaps he could bring evidence that he doesn't hate queers and get off the 'hate crime' aspect of the charges against him. Yet I will still have had the same suffering and anguish.
So, I'd get rid of the whole legal concept of hate crimes.
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
