|
Essentially I think the problem boils down to how much do you believe society benefits by making examples of racially/sexually/religiously-based crime versus how much you believe that highlighting differences only serves to reinforce them and encourages people to capitalize on them.
At this point, I share gucci's opinions on the matter. Murder (or rape or theft or whatever) shouldn't be based on the victim, but on the perpetrator's actions. I don't think it's a major deterrent to have an additional layer of punishment or liability for something that is a "hate crime" and, instead, only serves to make the issue racial rather than simply criminal.
I think, too, that the distinction between intent to commit a crime versus no intent and hate crimes is pretty meaningless in this case. We separate those because we feel as a society that the perpetrator can have varying levels of fault and, rightly, believe that someone who does not intend to harm should not be punished for his actions in the same way as someone who intended to harm.
Finally, if you intend to hurt someone, and kill them instead, it is murder, though it is not 1st degree murder. At common law, murder is a killing with malice aforethought which includes: intent to kill, intent to cause severe bodily injury, reckless disregard for the value of human life and a death which occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony.
|