...hate crime?

[Laharl]

The concept of a 'hate crime' is just stupid. Any crime, by nature, when committed against another person is motivated by hate.

I stab Roach to death
I break into Tipsy's house, and destroy his things.

The list goes on. Why would I have commited them? Because of HATRED.

Did he destroy his own copy of the quron? Yes? Then what's the problem? He destroyed his own property. Have the guy fix the toilet, call it a day.

Was it NOT his copy? Have him replace the book, fix the toilet. Call it a day.

Was it some muslim's copy? Same as above, hand them a tissue. Tell them to stop whining because frankly, scarlet, we don't give a damn.

I know not ALL muslims aren't turban wearing, fanatics. But many are. And many have their heads up their asses regardless. As with most religious people.

I should flush qurons down the toilet, along with the bibles I burn.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Only if you commit a crime while burning your bible. The book burning in itself isnt a crime.

Ok, then if there was a burn ban outdoors and I burnt a bible..it would be a hate crime. That's just stupid.

I concur with Magical Trevor, for the most part.

 

[B~E]

Was it NOT his copy? Have him replace the book, fix the toilet. Call it a day.

He still vandalized a toilet that wasnt his, motivated by apparent hatred of a group. You can't just call it a day.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Yes you can. Charge him with vandalizm..which is what he did. The whole idea of a "hate crime" is absurd..imo. Besides, most crimes (especially murders) are done out of hate.

 

[Tipsy]

A group has to be of 'protected status' to be charged with 'hate crime' status. For example, doing this same thing with a Bible (Roach's example) wouldn't let you be charged with hate crime or give you any jail time. For this case, the penalty that comes with a hate crime charge is excessive, and in general the concept of a hate crime is prejudicial.

 

[Laharl]

What are these 'protected' groups anyways?

 

[B~E]

For example, doing this same thing with a Bible (Roach's example) wouldn't let you be charged with hate crime

According to the wording of the law, Christianity is protected from hate crimes just like any other religion.

 

[Sogeking]

the aclu doesnt hire the finest lawyers to support cases against Christians

 

[B~E]

Yeah, I know. It isnt legitimate to defend yourself on the ground of being white, a male, or a christian.

 

[Laharl]

I'm gay, so technically (In Canada) I'd be considered part of a "protected" group. And I'll say this: I don't WANT to be "protected". The idea that I somehow need protected makes it seem like I am unable to look out for myself.

 

[Tipsy]

According to the wording of the law, Christianity is protected from hate crimes just like any other religion.

It's an in-practice prejudice. It's like saying giving absolute unchecked power to a leader who says he will be a good leader will end well. On paper, it could work, never in practice.

On top of that, they don't work (Link). "60% of offenders committed crimes for the thrill associated with the victimization", "Often, the perpetrators hoped their acts of violence would gain respect from their friends-a feeling that explains why so many hate crimes are committed by gangs of young men, and the least common offender, reported under the act, is the hard-core fanatic, imbued with the ideology of racial, religious, or ethnic bigotry and often a member of, or a potential recruit for, an extremist organization."

This case is an example of the previous data. This kid isn't a "hard-core fanatic, imbued with the ideology of racial, religious, or ethnic bigotry" nor a "member of...an extremist organization."

In practice, it creates prejudice. In practice, it doesn't target those who it is suppose to. In practice, it doesn't work.

What are these 'protected' groups anyways?

I don't know how it works in Canada, but it differs depending on where you are in the United States because federal and many states are different on the issue.