# Resolved: there is no principled reasons to punish hate crimes worse... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2008, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599 "2008-11-13T21:38:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/81 "2008-11-15T02:05:52Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > But whatever the consequences, it still wasn’t the meth addict’s _intent_ that your neighborhood is going to be scared of getting killed in their bed, and their babies too. Upthread, someone mentioned that you are responsible for the reasonable reactions to your crime, even if it wasn’t your intent. The meth addict might not mean to terrorize the population by his actions, but his actions certainly do that, and it is a reasonable reaction for the population to be in fear because of it. Hell, we wouldn’t need locks on our cars and homes, or passwords on our computers if it wasn’t for thievery. Isn’t this fear that applies to everyone, regardless of race, worse than something targeted at one race? I was thinking about this thread a little bit ago when watching the news. Apparantly criminals have been staking out a particular ATM because of its low visibility and targeting the weak and elderly to steal money from them. Now “weak” and “elderly” aren’t protected classes. But hate crimes proponents would say that if these guys were targeting only Haitian people at this ATM, then they should get a harsher penalty. I can’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/82 "2008-11-15T18:23:04Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Those of us who lived through the 2002 sniper killings in the Washington, DC area may remember that those attacks put the entire metropolitan area in fear. And whether or not they started out that way, by the end of their run, the snipers were clearly doing it for that purpose. Indeed, John Allen Muhammad was convicted of something like “homicide committed with an intent to terrorize the government or the public at large.” Were these hate crimes? I would have had no problem with the desire to cause terror being used as a sentencing enhancement in those cases. In fact, I think it was - wasn’t it one of the factors in the death penalty stage? Most people haven’t been supporting a separate category of “hate crimes” just availability of a sentence enhancement for crimes motivated by particular factors. Just like the law has always done. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/83 "2008-11-15T18:27:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I was thinking about this thread a little bit ago when watching the news. Apparantly criminals have been staking out a particular ATM because of its low visibility and targeting the weak and elderly to steal money from them. Now “weak” and “elderly” aren’t protected classes. > > But hate crimes proponents would say that if these guys were targeting only Haitian people at this ATM, then they should get a harsher penalty. I can’t see it. You don’t think someone who assaults a 70 year old woman, beats her, and steals her purse is likely to get a higher sentence than someone who does the same thing to a 20 year old football player (well presumably steals his wallet, unless he is carrying a purse, of course)? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/84 "2008-11-15T19:14:21Z")
If we believe in equal justice, then punishing someone more severely for a crime than you would punish someone else, you are doing wrong. Our justice should be blind. A crime is a crime and that is it. When you “make an example” of some one, you are admitting that he is getting treated harsher than another person would. How can that be fair? ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/85 "2008-11-15T20:28:17Z")
While I agree with the principal of hate crime laws, I think the implimentation needs some work. I would expand the definition of threat making to include what now falls under hate crime laws. When you paint a swastika on a synagog you are making a threat against the Jewish community. The making of this threat should be punished in addition to the vandalism. In the murder cases above, the perpitrator is threatening a class of people, and demonstrating an ability and willingness to carry out such a threat. While it may seem trivial, this change would go a long way toward addressing “thought police” concerns. I don 't think hating fags should be a crime. Threatening fags with violence should be. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599/86 "2008-11-15T21:34:53Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You don’t think someone who assaults a 70 year old woman, beats her, and steals her purse is likely to get a higher sentence than someone who does the same thing to a 20 year old football player (well presumably steals his wallet, unless he is carrying a purse, of course)? Well, generally, criminals look for the easy target. They wouldn’t attack the 20 year old football player, because the 70 year old lady’s money spends just as well, and the criminal is much less likely to get killed trying to take it. That aside, a judge would probably have a sense of personal outrage at beating an elderly person and sentence the person more harshly, because that is the first goal of society: To keep the strong from oppressing the weak. But he doesn’t have to. A hate crimes statute creates an entire separate class of offense based solely on racist/bigoted views of the attacker. Views which are constitutionally protected. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-there-is-no-principled-reasons-to-punish-hate-crimes-worse/472599.md?page=4)