Aaron Hall.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

What should be charged more though; A dude killing another dude for sleeping with his partner, or a white dude killing a brown dude for no apparant reason? (both rethorical and conceptional)

[Osmose]

The dude who killed the black man, because not only is he a murderer, but he's a racist and uses that as motivation to kill. The other guy, although still a murderer, simply has anger problems.

Counter example: Guy A kills someone for insulting him and his family. Guy B kills someone for being asian. Guy C kills a child. Who should have the worst sentence?

Most will say guy C, because it's a child, and killing a child just seems morally wrong - the kid has yet to live most of his life, was probably an innocent, and couldn't defend himself. But, again, this is applying our own morals to the legal system - if any life is worth the same as any other, than he should be charged like Guy A. But because we believe that violence against children is wrong, we punish Guy C worse, just like because we believe that racism is wrong, we punish Guy B more than Guy A.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

Damn Guy C, damn you!

Yeah if you go to jail for killing a child, you're not coming out of there happy.

[DragonBlaze]

Theres a problem with your logic Osmose.

 

not only is he a murderer, but he's a racist

Racism is only one means of hate. Real life example here, a guy and his wife were in a car fighting about something. The guy then throws his wife out of the car, backs up, and runs her over, killing her. This man clearly has some temper issues, but he killed his wife basically cuz he hated her cuz she argued with him. Was it the wifes fault for argueing? No, cuz she had a right to her own opinions.

So we get a guy who killed a person for being black, and we got a guy who killed his wife for having her own opinions. Neither victums are at fault, but we charge guy A more for killing a black man? Racism is a menas of hate, just like 'killing your wife for arguing with you'.

If we'd use your logic saying not only is person A a murderer, hes a racist, THEN we'd have to do the same for every other murder, such as in person B's case, and say not only were they a murderer, they were a tempermental person who kills wives for arguing with them.

You could charge anyone who intentionally killed someone with two charges, the actual crime and the intentions. Thus we shouldn't limit the 'hes a murder AND ' to only the racist.

[Osmose]

Charging for both the crime and the intent is not viable because intent challenges a person's opinion directly (Rather than only considering it when it is the cause of harm/violation of others). See, anyone can be a racist - it's their right to free speech. It is highly discouraged and even banned in the form of segregation of public services, but that doesn't mean you can't be a racist yourself, as you have the right to an opinion.

Also,

If we'd use your logic saying not only is person A a murderer, hes a racist, THEN we'd have to do the same for every other murder, such as in person B's case, and say not only were they a murderer, they were a tempermental person who kills wives for arguing with them.

I believe we actually do that, otherwise motive would never be considered. I mean, how would we distinguish between a hate crime and a normal murder otherwise?

We don't limit this kind of treatment to racists, but to any crime that involves what our society believes is an extremely heinous crime. Like Guy C. Using your logic, Guy C shouldn't be charged worse than guys A or B because hating a child is just a form of hate.

It's just the same as how we don't punish thieves as much as murderers - we certainly don't want people to steal stuff, but stealing is not as bad as murder. So we punish murder because it is worse than stealing. We believe that violence against children is wrong. So a murderer whose crime is against a child is punished worse. We believe that racism is wrong. So a murderer whose crime is against another race (And is racially motivated rather than by some other factor) is punished worse.

Your stance basically appears to be that you believe all hate, no matter the motivation behind it or the circumstances around it, is equal (and wrong). I could be wrong, but society's view is that hate is subjective to the context it is used in, and thus we punish accordingly.

[DragonBlaze]

I agree with your child statements. But like you said before, a child has their whole life ahead of  them, and on top of that, they are less capable of defending themselves and what not.

However, like in my example, a white wife and a black person, lets say about the same age. If I were to kill one of them, for whatever reason, I shouldn't be charged more for killing the black person because his skin color is black as opposed to a lighter sentance for killing the wife because her skin color is white. Or lets say I do kill a child, i shouldn't be charged more for killing a black child than killing a white child.

The motives should be looked at in order to determain who the killer was and everything and to solve the case. But I don't think that a motive should make the sentance worse or lighter.

I know society thinks that way, but I disagree with it.

I think everyone should be treated equally and such, and no special treatment for anyone because of their race, and of course, no dissadvantages because of it. This is something completely unrelated, but I pay a lot more for my car insurance than my girlfriend, we have simular cars, I have a better driving record, I'm older, and I have a high GPA, but i pay MORE cuz I'm a guy. And studies actually show that girls get in just about as many accidents as guys now. Another example is that if a family is poor and needs federal aid or whatever, it is far more likely that a black family will get it because their a minority, even if the white family needs it just as bad or more. Or like in my area, its mainly white people, but we have minorties around. When looking for a job (or at least my job) whenever a minority applies, they automatically get the job so we can fill our 'diversity thing' even if 50 other people who were more qualified applied. I just think that if we really want equality and whatnot, we should actually treat everyone equally, and not give special treatment to someone because of thier skin color or sex. Thus if a white man kills a black man, it should be treated the same if a black man killed a black man, or a white man killed a white man.

[Moosetroop11]

I agree that the minority forced hiring thing is utterly wrong, but I agree with charging someone more for commiting a hate crime. Basically, once a person is dead, they're dead. The punishment handed out does not do the dead person any favours. HOWEVER, by pouring on extra punishment for hate crimes, the public gets the idea that hate crimes are awful things, and people grow up knowing that equality is the way to go.

Basically, murder is murder, but racism and that is a different problem which needs to be adressed. This way the punishment system works two ways. You might think it's disrespectful to those murdered to have so much politics riding on the fate of their attackers but it's really helped. Hate crimes are looked upon with so much shock that minority groups are a great deal safer nowadays.