In my city on the local news they showed that a catholic and Mormon church have been graffiti on twice the last two week. The news asked on a poll it the tag gets should be chargered with hate crimes. It was 79% yes and 21% no. What are your thoughts?
If it's the normal taggers' rubbish, then no, it's just the normal vandalism and should not get treated any differently from tagging any other building.
If it's specific hate stuff then it's a hate crime.
Originally posted by RBHILL In my city on the local news they showed that a catholic and Mormon church have been graffiti on twice the last two week. The news asked on a poll it the tag gets should be chargered with hate crimes. It was 79% yes and 21% no. What are your thoughts?
I oppose the concept of "hate crimes". Punish people for what they do (or conspire to do) and not what they think. If "hate" is established as the motive for committing the crime, then so be it. But we should punish criminal acts and not thoughtcrimes.
Originally posted by FMF I oppose the concept of "hate crimes". Punish people for what they do (or conspire to do) and not what they think. If "hate" is established as the motive for committing the crime, then so be it. But we should punish criminal acts and not thoughtcrimes.
Originally posted by FMF I oppose the concept of "hate crimes". Punish people for what they do (or conspire to do) and not what they think. If "hate" is established as the motive for committing the crime, then so be it. But we should punish criminal acts and not thoughtcrimes.
I agree, but there is a distinction between ordinary crime and crime committed because of hate, and I think that should be reflected in the punishment.
It's when laws are passed that punish a thought that's dangerous, and I don't think they've done that, yet.
Originally posted by josephw I agree, but there is a distinction between ordinary crime and crime committed because of hate, and I think that should be reflected in the punishment.
It's when laws are passed that punish a thought that's dangerous, and I don't think they've done that, yet.
They are working on it, expose someone to a different faith in some places
in this country and you will be harming them in some way, or so they say.
Kelly
Originally posted by josephw I agree, but there is a distinction between ordinary crime and crime committed because of hate, and I think that should be reflected in the punishment.
I would say hate crime is a crime of thought probably. So it shouldn't be that crime they committed. Because they could've been high on marijuana and just done it to be funny.
You're not much of a social engineer then. 🙂 If we don't discourage hate as a motive for committing a crime, then we lose the culture. Racism is hatred, and when someone harms another based on race that one should suffer the consequences of a hate crime.
Let them hate locked up for a while longer. Discourage the act caused by the hate.
Not saying laws should be made to regulate thought. That would be a crime in itself.
Originally posted by RBHILL I would say hate crime is a crime of thought probably. So it shouldn't be that crime they committed. Because they could've been high on marijuana and just done it to be funny.
It's not good to think bad. But it's a personal choice, and personal choices, if no one is harmed, shouldn't be regulated by law.
Freedom of thought can only be changed by force by inflicting duress.
Originally posted by josephw If we don't discourage hate as a motive for committing a crime, then we lose the culture. Racism is hatred, and when someone harms another based on race that one should suffer the consequences of a hate crime.
We disagree then. We don't agree in any way whatsoever, it seems. What prompted you to say "I agree"?
Originally posted by josephw I agree, but there is a distinction between ordinary crime and crime committed because of hate, and I think that should be reflected in the punishment.
It's when laws are passed that punish a thought that's dangerous, and I don't think they've done that, yet.
If I remember correctly the "hate crime" idea and laws began because of racial issues, not religious. The blacks wanted the whites committing crimes against them punished more, like members of the KKK.
Originally posted by RBHILL In my city on the local news they showed that a catholic and Mormon church have been graffiti on twice the last two week. The news asked on a poll it the tag gets should be chargered with hate crimes. It was 79% yes and 21% no. What are your thoughts?
Depends on the church and the nature of the graffiti I reckon. If it's one of those hideous modern affairs then a bit of colourful tagging would probably improve the aesthetics. I imagine Jesus would approve. Then again, if it's all swastikas and sweary then one might be forgiven for objecting.
02 Sep '14 08:191 edit
Tagging a church building
Back to Top