So you see no distinction between a robbery assault based on racial hatred of the victim and a robbery assault from someone just trying to feed a drug habit.
I really don't. A person was relieved of their possessions through violence in both instances. I don't give a fuck what they thought or said while they did it. Until very recently, the penal code didn't either, for the most part. No one should try to control thoughts, only behaviors and actions.
No because motivation behind a crime is a key part of determining sentencing and rehabilitation for the culprit. Boiling it down to "dey do same ting, dey bofe get punish" isn't really a logical way of dispensing justice.
It is the MOST logical method of dispensation, actually. Aside from how many counts the person faces or prior criminal history, everything else is entirely subjective and could be influenced by something as inconsequential and prejudicial as the judge having a tummy ache that day or just not liking the offender's face. Who is anyone to judge thoughts? "Oh well, he robbed that persom because of _____." Unless That's tyranny.
I think hate crimes should be applicable only in instances of a clear history and pattern of abuse and hate speech towards a specific group, ethnicity, religion, race, or mental deficiency. That's really what these laws were enacted for, to throw the book at hate groups that take their free speech and convert it into actions.
13 comments
n/a baraksobamas 2017-01-06
Faggot
n/a goo-gobbler 2017-01-06
I disagree. I bludgeon them hooker whores out of love.
n/a theee_tOECUTTEr 2017-01-06
I think only white people should be charged with hate crimes because black hate is justified
n/a K1bbler 2017-01-06
So you see no distinction between a robbery assault based on racial hatred of the victim and a robbery assault from someone just trying to feed a drug habit.
n/a F_H_Rileys_MaitreD 2017-01-06
I really don't. A person was relieved of their possessions through violence in both instances. I don't give a fuck what they thought or said while they did it. Until very recently, the penal code didn't either, for the most part. No one should try to control thoughts, only behaviors and actions.
n/a K1bbler 2017-01-06
Well then you have a very childlike view of the world.
n/a F_H_Rileys_MaitreD 2017-01-06
Why? Because I don't want arbitrary/subjective law interpretations being considered in the metering of punishment to offenders?
n/a K1bbler 2017-01-06
No because motivation behind a crime is a key part of determining sentencing and rehabilitation for the culprit. Boiling it down to "dey do same ting, dey bofe get punish" isn't really a logical way of dispensing justice.
n/a F_H_Rileys_MaitreD 2017-01-06
It is the MOST logical method of dispensation, actually. Aside from how many counts the person faces or prior criminal history, everything else is entirely subjective and could be influenced by something as inconsequential and prejudicial as the judge having a tummy ache that day or just not liking the offender's face. Who is anyone to judge thoughts? "Oh well, he robbed that persom because of _____." Unless That's tyranny.
n/a K1bbler 2017-01-06
Not really. You also keep saying judging thoughts but it doesn't mean anything and is making you look dumb.
n/a chikinbizkit 2017-01-06
I think hate crimes should be applicable only in instances of a clear history and pattern of abuse and hate speech towards a specific group, ethnicity, religion, race, or mental deficiency. That's really what these laws were enacted for, to throw the book at hate groups that take their free speech and convert it into actions.
n/a ihaveaholeinmyass 2017-01-06
Did you just listen to los291?
n/a crookedmile 2017-01-06
Put down the bottle and sleep it off son.