As the world is becoming one global village, migrations are becoming very common. Unless the acts of hate are punished, the country will gradually deteriorate. It is normal to have feelings of hate toward a particular community or country, but when it leads to violence, it must be checked and hatred should be minimized through awareness programs.
Acts of hate should most definitely be criminalized. Nobody should be targeted for arbitrary reasons, and anyone who harasses or attacks a person for arbitrary reasons should be severely punished. Nobody should live in fear simply because they are of a different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or ability.
We have all seen that hate which is not checked can spiral out of control, with an example being Hitler. Hate can be easily defined by set criteria. In no way should freedom of speech be used as an excuse to commit a hate crime. At some point the sensible people of the world will come to the conclusion that we need to live together in peace in order to survive.
I believe acts of hate should be criminalized. Hate crimes have been going since humans inhabited the Earth. People have hated on individuals who are different in color, sex, sexuality, and beliefs for too long. Many have died or gotten injured from hate crimes. If we would make prison sentences longing and fines more costly, people may stop hating on people who are different from them.
I do feel that hate crimes should be punished. If a person is being attacked just for being themselves, that person should see justice served. There is nothing wrong with disliking someone but, if you causes person harm you should be punished. A lot of people have gone unpunished for crimes they have committed. A law should be in place and criminal action should be taken.
Acts of hate ought to be illegal if for no other reason than to provide a deterrent to those who may have a desire to do something hateful to someone or someone's property. Some people have very strong opinions about certain things, and have no self control when it comes to acting on their impulses. I think punishing people for their ignorance is a very good idea. It will help set an example for young people who may be swayed by their fear of punishment. Peer pressure, mob mentality, can lead to acts of hate, but the possibility of legal retribution might be enough to stop them from acting impulsively.
People that kill people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and other groups they belong to is just wrong. The reason that hate crimes should be punished more severely is because it sends out a message that people of these groups are just as important as anyone else and that you can not just exile them because of the groups they belong to. It sends a clear message that you cant commit racially motivated crimes. These hate crime cases tell people that this is not ok.
People who kill for love, or revenge, or any other reason should be punished, but killing someone because you hate them for something they cant control is even more messed up. It is not their fault that they are the way they are. They can not control what color or group or sexual perfence they are attracted to.
It would be patently unfair not to consider the motivations behind a person's crime in deciding their punishment. If someone sets out with the intent to physically or psychologically torture another person, then they deserve to face the consequences of their actions. At the very least, they should be made to atone to society through performing community service and, in more severe cases, they should be given jail time.
Acts of hate should be criminalized because they represent a systematic threat to a society. It is not enough to treat a criminal the same as any other criminal who might be guilty of assault, robbery, murder, etc. if they are driven by a hateful ideology. Targeting a specific individual for a crime based on a hateful ideology creates broader social problems than random crime.
When it comes to hate crimes they can result in prejudice. People may say rude things that could cause someone to commit suicide. doing things like what happened at an army mans funeral with people saying god kills soldiers because of homosexuals is wrong period.
Any criminal act deserves punishment. But, to impose extra punishment because it was done for a certain reason, it makes no sense to me. A crime is a crime, and the reason behind it should have no bearing on the punishment set forth.
There are already laws against violence and degradation. Trying to get inside the mind of the criminal to determine their exact emotions and motivations is not possible. Therefore, the process of determining which crimes are hate crimes will always be somewhat arbitrary. Arbitrary application of the law is abominable and hurts both the victims and the families of the perpetrators.
There are few of us who condone an act of hatred. But an "act" of hate can take many forms.
If a criminal act is committed as an act of hate, then it should be punished with greater severity than a similar act committed in the heat of passion or any reason other than hatred.
If an act of hate takes the form of speaking with hatred or joining a group that engages in speaking with hatred, do we have the right to criminalize these acts? The Ku Klux Klan has been in existence for over a hundred years. They are not known to be a warm and fuzzy group of people. We allow them to exist because we can not tell them what to say--or not say--without in effect "muzzling" every other citizen.
We have the right of free speech and, like it or not, that applies to people who speak with hatred as well as the "good guys."
We now have an additional problem of deciding what to do about the Internet. Should bullying on Facebook or Twitter be considered a hate crime? It certainly stems from hatred.
We need new laws--new legal decisions to guide us online.
There is no difference in the severity of the crime between the brutal murder of a gay man and the brutal murder of a straight man. Both crimes speak equally of cruelty. Both crimes should be punished with equal severity.
Hate crimes are based on the motivation for an assault on another person or damage to someone's property. Since there are already laws against assault to body and property, creating laws that are motivated by emotion or words is a slippery slope to limiting free speech. Unless physical damage is done, then hate laws become dependent on speech. Even though hatred is arguably immoral, it can not be legislated as illegal. People are allowed to feel however they want in a democratic society.
Actions of hate should not be criminalized unless another crime occurs too. It's a despicable thing to hate and to act on it and display it, but it's worse to infringe upon free speech. If no crime has been committed, then the hate itself should not be a crime. We don't need a thought police.
Hate crime laws establish the precedent that it is acceptable to base punishments on the views of the criminal, not their acts. The danger of this is that as time goes on, the definition of hate crimes will tend to expand to fit the prevailing politics of the day, eventually allowing the state to criminalize acts of political protest.
We have plenty of laws on the books that deal with crimes of "Hate". They are not called "Hate crimes" but they are called by the legal terms such as harassment, criminal mischief, and even murder. Labeling crimes "Hate crimes" are a bad idea because crimes are often committed out of some sort of hate to begin with regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
What is the difference between a hate crime murder and cold blooded murder? Both victims were murdered. Executing both murderers creates justice for society and the dead. Whether a rape was committed out of hatred of the victim's race or merely to satisfy an evil lust, rape was committed. The reason is irrelevant, only the facts of the act should matter. Rape was done, so jail time must be done. If we add extra penalties for the motive, we will waste court and cop resources in determining the emotional state of the criminals instead of processing more criminals to get off the street. And by criminalizing the emotion, we risk a State interested in getting inside everyone's head. How can there be freedom of speech if one cannot have freedom of thought? After all, incitement to riot is a crime. Why not criminalize the belief that one is despicable? Hate crime laws have already resulted in pastors in Canada and Sweden facing fines and sanctions for stating that homosexuality is wrong. They never harmed a homosexual, yet they ran through a legal gauntlet for "hate" crimes. In these cases, the defendants didn't even hate the individuals but their actions were determined as such. Like "freedom from offense", "freedom from hate" comes to mean that politically incorrect views are deemed hate and thus criminal. How far, too, shall criminalizing hatred go? If we already see business people fined for denying service due to their beliefs, shall we now have the government questioning everyone's motives? If one's motives are unpure, what is the result? If a Black Panther's business refuses to serve a white client, shall he face hate crimes sanctions, even if the decision was based on poor profit margins? If a person refuses to date another because they don't like their politics, shall they be prosecuted for the "hate crime"? Shall ex spouses require counseling or face criminal penalties because they hate each other? Punish the crime, or risk thought crime.
This is so stupid. How many crimes are done out of love? Name a few. Just a few. Oh, I murdered so and so, because I loved him so much, that I just had to kill him. I believe that what people are really pushing for is the criminalization of thought. If you don't think the way they do, it is going to be considered a crime. Just remember, no crimes are done out of love. There are laws on the books to deal with crimes. We should not try and to control thought.