Subject:
|
Re: Stupid Tales of Misplaced Zeal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:53:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
342 times
|
| |
|
|
Santosh Bhat wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Julie Krenz writes:
>
> >
> > Well, yes, you're right about that. Hearing about hate crimes just leaves me
> > sooo frustrated - among other feelings.
>
> A crime is a criminal act regardless of who committed it, or their reason
> for doing such. There is no distinction between crime spurned by hate or
> crime spurned by love.
>
> Hate Crimes, I imagaine, is a term created by the media to dramatise an ugly
> incident. Obviously the a headline of "Man bites Dog" isn't good enough
> these days.
>
> Santosh
This is not all correct. In some jurisdictions, a given criminal act
can result in different charges, based on the criminal's reason
for the act.
For example, If an assault is primarily motivated by the
perpetrator's hate for people of the victim's skin color,
then it can be classified as a "hate crime" with greater
penalties than would be levied for an assault due to
other reasons. An assault due to the victim having
looked leeringly at the perpetrator's girlfriend
would not be classified as a "hate crime".
/Eric McC/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stupid Tales of Misplaced Zeal
|
| (...) A crime is a criminal act regardless of who committed it, or their reason for doing such. There is no distinction between crime spurned by hate or crime spurned by love. Hate Crimes, I imagaine, is a term created by the media to dramatise an (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
