Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
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.
|
The law doesn't function with the purpose of eliminating the perceived differences between people. In fact, in these cases, action by the law would be entirely unnecessary if those same perceived differences weren't already well established.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If a crime is committed on the basis of race then the matter is already racial. Having laws in place to address these issues ensures that the law itself remains directly applicable to the real world.
Should we not have laws in place that protect children especially? How do the laws that protect the handicapped, the elderly, or women serve to exacerbate the issues between the aforementioned groups and those that would exploit them?