Reply #37: As Long As Special Hate Crime Terms Exist, Then This Should Pass Too. But I'm Not Sure They Should [View All]

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

exist at all, regardless of which type of hate crime is involved.

I've always been on the fence about that. Part of me condones it conceptually, but when I think about it in a straightforward logical manner I can never get over the simple point that no equal act of violence is worse than another regardless of what the initial catalyst was. In fact, sometimes I wonder if declaring some intents as more worthy of punishment doesn't hurt some causes.

For example, why would someone attacking a man based on sexual orientation only, with no relation or even acquaintance of the individual involved, be any worse than an abusive husband who beats his wife to death? If you break it down, it's almost like saying "well the former was worse because the gay guy did nothing and was just specifically targeted for simply being gay". But is that really worse? Isn't that adversely then almost saying that the attack on the wife isn't as bad because she contributed somehow, such as by nagging the guy or not doing things the way he liked blah blah blah? I don't think that's fair to the woman in that case. I don't care how much she nagged or pissed him off, the crime is still deplorable. I don't find it less so based on the fact that they knew each other and therefore the guy had more excuses he could use as to why he did it. I think it actually undermines the victim and the atrocity of the act perpetrated on them, if they weren't within a 'hate crime' class.

So based on that sort of example, I've never fully been able to confidently support the hate crime legislation concept as a whole. Just seems to me that the catalyst for the crime isn't even close to being as important as the brutality of the crime itself.