Hate crime legislation already exists for a number of categories. Do you think it should repealed? If it didn't exist in cases of racially motivated crime, would you oppose its introduction? The point is to reduce violent crime. We know that some people are vulnerable because of the level of prejudice in society. While reducing that prejudice is the ultimate solution, providing particularly strong deterence against crimes committed against people because of race, religion or sexual orientation, you deter actions based on prejudice and acts of violence in general.
Views on the morality of homosexuality - and I'm guessing this is where you are coming from- should have no bearing on a person's protection under the law. And if they require more protection because of the behaviour of others, they should be given it.
Yes, I think it should be repealed. The reason has nothing to do with the fact that I think homosexual behavior is sinful based on Scripture. I think hate crime legislation is dangerous because it criminalizes thought. Nothing else does that, and for good reason - it means that "thought police" are required. The reason behind a person's decision to commit a crime has nothing to do with their trial or their sentence, nor should it. Because nobody really knows what the reason is except the person himself (and God, of course.) The motive may be important during an investigation and when an arrest is made, but not when determining guilt or innocence. Because "thought police" is a dangerous idea.
Also, hate crime legislation doesn't protect individuals - legislation already exists for that. Instead it makes an assault against one person into an attack on an entire group. And it makes two crimes out of one. The assault (or whatever) against the person is the first crime, and the attacker's "hate" against the person's "group protected by law" (which doesn't include straight white males, by the way) is the second crime.
It's also scary because these days, "disagree with" is a synonymous phrase for "hate" to a lot of people. Someone could take particular posts of mine in which I say that I think recognizing a gay couple and giving them the same marital status as a male-female couple is bad policy, and call it hate.
I am certainly against all violent crime, motivated by hate or whatever else. But I think hate crime legislation is a scary thing, because it tries to govern the heart. Plus, I think it's unnecessary. Violent crime is already illegal, and I don't think that a violent crime against someone in one of the selected "groups protected by law" should receive any harsher punishment than a violent crime against a straight white male.
I agree with your statement: "Views on the morality of homosexuality - and I'm guessing this is where you are coming from- should have no bearing on a person's protection under the law." Just because someone happens to be homosexual doesn't mean that they receive more protection from violent crime than I do.
It doesn't police how people think, but if you think deterrence is a factor in sentencing policy, having tougher sentences for crimes that can be legitimately shown to have a racial motive should reduce such crimes and therefore one aspect of the mistreatment of some individuals in society. Racial violence has, of course, reduced dramatically, but instances of violence committed against gay people because they are gay has increased, which is why people are calling for similar inclusion. It is a simple mechanism that works. And given that the only people affected are proven criminals, why are you so much more on their side than that of the victims of crime?
But how can you PROVE that people have some sort of "hate" for a certain group? (Which isn't always "hate" as much as "disagreement with the lifestyle of".) You can't prove what someone thinks.
Someone who is going to beat up someone who happens to be gay isn't going to be deterred from it just because they think they'll get sentencing based on their assault on that person in addition to sentencing based on their "crime" of "hatred" of the group that the person is in. Actually, I think it will cause more animosity because it sets groups apart and gives them more protection under the law than other groups.
Besides, something like sexual preference isn't the same thing as a superficial, inborn thing like race, gender, or ethnicity. There's no reason to argue about that with me, because I've done quite a bit of research on it and I think the idea of homosexuality being genetic is wrong. I won't change my mind, so let's not discuss it to death in these comments!
Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the legislation will reduce violent crime just by sentencing a person based on their assault against one person AND their "hatred" for a group, I think it IS thought police because it presumes to prove what someone thinks about a group of people, and I think it should be repealed. I think that's about all I can say about it without going around in circles here.
Totally agree with Kim on this one, and she explained my views very well so I won't waste time repeating them. As I'm finding with most huge conservative-vs-liberal disagreements these days, everything hinges on the fact that different groups can define one word 2 different ways. Like "hate" or "wrong." So it's become very difficult when any legislation includes one of these words. As Kim said, one cannot prove that someone else feels "hate," and often it is attacked where it does *not* exist at all.
Commenting by HaloScan
