Do you want to know how pathetic the concept of hate is when it comes to jurisprudence? So many leftists blather on about how some crimes need to be treated as more serious if there is evidence that they were committed out of “hatred” for some designated – politically defined – group of people. It might be race or “sexual orientation” or some other category.
The point is that such crimes should result in greater penalties than if, for example, you beat the tar out of your wife because you love her…
Well, leftists have already made a mockery of justice by repealing the death penalty for crimes such as murder. And now we see in the article below that two men have been convicted in “numerous hate killings.” And what punishment do they get? Life in prison. What would their punishment have been if these weren’t “hate” crimes? Probably the same.
If the correct penalty was in place – execution – then classifying the murder as a “hate” crime – would be irrelevant, unless it allowed for torture before the execution – something that leftists might support, but Christians don’t.
And with the correct penalty not being in place, the watered-down inadequate penalty for murder isn’t going to be any greater for a “hate” crime. So the whole classification of “hate” crime becomes a pathetic joke.
This illustrates well why it’s so dangerous to allow leftists to impact a nation’s justice system.
October 28, 2010
Moscow court convicts 2 men of numerous hate killings
Canadian Press Newswire
MOSCOW – A court has convicted two Russian men of racially motivated murders. The Moscow City Court on Thursday found Vasily Krivets, 22, guilty of 15 hate killings in 2007-2008 and gave him a life sentence. It convicted the 23-year-old Dmitry Ufimtsev of five murders in the same period and sentenced him to 22 years in prison. The two men were members of the White Wolves, a skinhead group that officials say was responsible for more than 30 killings.
Hate crimes, often targeting dark-skinned people from Caucasus and Central Asia, have been common in Russia. They peaked in 2008, when 110 were killed and 487 wounded, an independent watchdog says. The Moscow Bureau for Human Rights estimates 70,000 neo-Nazis were active in Russia – compared with a just few thousand in the early 1990s.
Loading ...
Maybe you missed the part where juries are frequently wrong – especially when someone is accused of some emotionally charged crime like rape. Here in Ontario, there were several men who were found guilty of rape and murder only to be exonerated years later by DNA evidence.
You would have had those men killed – well, “executed”.
The point being made with hate crimes is that we’re judging intent. Just as we separate 1st degree murder from 2nd degree based on whether it was planned or not, we also separate out hate crimes – those that were committed to intimidate a particular group.
So, yes, there’s a difference between being a gay guy up in a random bar fight versus entering a gay bar with the intent to beat up a gay guy and scare all the rest of the gays from ever leaving their houses.
There’s a difference between whacking your daughter in the head in a moment anger versus dragging her out in public and beating her up to teach all the other little girls that they’d better marry the man daddy picked out.
That’s why we have a designation called “hate crime” – because sometimes the criminal is assaulting more than just the person being battered.
I’m not aware of anyone who is intellectually serious who likens intent to “hate” crime. You have to prove intent based on evidence. People pursue “hete crime” prosecution based on the flimsiest circumstancial evidence, and in Canada’s hate crime tribunals, no evidence is required – simply the allegation by the complainant, and the complainant’s claim that his feelings were hurt over whatever the defendent did or said. Equating hate crime with the traditional principle of intent is grossly degrading the justice system.
There’s no hate crime provision for beathing up firemen because they are firemen – or cops, or people with tattoos, or pet owners. This hate classification only applies to designated people. In other words, it is a violation of the principle of equality before the law. It is also the vulgar and evil politicization of the legal system. It destroys genuine justice. You can’t have justice when the system is politicized. If your idea of justice is that might makes right, then hate crime fits right into that. Sure there’s a diff. between a gay guy beat up in a random bar fight vs. someone entering the bar with the intent to beat up a gay, and as you say, it’s a matter of intent. But whether the victim was a gay guy or not should be completely irrelevant in the administration of justice and determination of the punishment. Whether those protected by special hate crime provisions intend it or not, it is a matter of logical necessity that victims who are outside of those protected categories are seen as “second-class” victims in the eyes of the law. That’s an inescapable reality in the context of “hate crime,” and it serves no one well in the long-run when people try to side-step that very serious fact and pretend it isn’t true.
DTK Greg,
What are you talking about? “Maybe you missed the part where juries are frequently wrong – especially when someone is accused of some emotionally charged crime like rape.” What does jury errors have to do with hate crimes? So, they don’t make mistakes when someone is charged with a hate crime where they do when it isn’t a hate crime?
The only difference in the different scenarios you made is in your mind. If a white straight guy fights with a gay guy, people like you call it a hate crime. Get real! Sometimes people just don’t like each other because of things other than skin colour or sexual orientation or whatever, but people like you make it a hate crime, especially if a white guy is involved.
There are those ignoramuses out there that don’t like someone just because they are different but they are ignorant slobs. I think you fall into that category, now that I’m thinking about it, because you come here and twist what was written so you can push your bigoted agenda. The message of the story was clear, crime is crime and is punishable, so some blow hard lefty calling it a hate crime doesn’t change anything or add to the punishment. If you have proof it does then submit it.
DTK Greg,
“That’s why we have a designation called “hate crime” – because sometimes the criminal is assaulting more than just the person being battered.” That is the biggest bunch of lefty blow hard malarkey I’ve heard in a very long time.