What do you guys think about hate crimes?

[exploited]

Gonna end this quote string here.

You've asked why I am opposed to it, and I've told you. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, and I'm not sure that either of us has really won out here.

To your advantage, hate crimes are focused on actions that are repugnant to society at large, and such actions should not be encouraged or tolerated. On the other hand, I think the justice system should be made tough enough to make the need for hate crime legislation irrelevant.

To my advantage, there are some serious doubts about whether or not crimes should be considered "worse" because the person didn't like a person based on a certain characteristic. Not only does it open up a very dangerous potential for a slippery slope situation, it also punishes people more for thinking something than a person who did the same thing without thinking something. On the other hand, bigots are assholes, and need to be taught a lesson.

In conclusion, neither of us are changing our minds, but both of us agree that the best way to treat people who do things like this is very long prison sentences, where they will learn very quickly to play nice with others, or face the consequences.

Although I will point out that I did find a link that said that white people are just as likely as hispanics to be targeted by hate crimes, and more likely than blacks, and yet, by your own admission, only 20% of hate crimes are against non-whites. Which seems to prove my point (although I will admit the source isn't the best, although the tone of the article doesn't make me think it was written with any clear bias or reason for fabrication). On the other hand, you pointed out that application of law doesn't say anything about validity of law.

Conclusion: walking away.

[Dylan]

Huh. Well you never said anything to really support your position. Kinda an odd way to discuss an issue. *shrug*

[exploited]

[Dylan]

[exploited]

[dontworrybehappy]

[Dylan]

Lol exploited none of those were points. Eg you stated that hate crime laws punish people more harshly if they had a certain motivation while try commit a crime versus if they don't. This is just a restatement of what a hate crime is, it's not a point against it one way or the other. Very poor showing my friend.

[Dylan]

[exploited]

[Dylan]

Why is criminal justice only restricted to actions? You're making a conclusory statement (yet again) without any normative justifications.

Furthermore hate crimes require an action anyway, so you can still limit CJ to actions and punish hate crimes. Punishing somebody more because of their intent has always been a component of many crimes, so your argument that CJ only applies to actions without regard to intent is on a very weak foundation. Eg, burglary, attempted murder, the various other derivations of crimes within the broader group of taking a life, conspiracy, solicitation, and many securities violations all rest on the mentL state of the actor.

Slippery slope is a fallacy. When hate crime legislation that only punishes thought is passed and withstands const muster we can address the merits of those laws. Until then avoiding fallacious arguments seems the best course of action.