Why should the motivation for a crime change the punishment? Can we not be more objective than that? Subjecting someone to violence is usually a result of one prejudice or another, why should one prejudice be treated differently than the rest? It makes no sense to me. Someone please explain.
Well you see. We have these things called lobbyists. The government works for them. The prison industrial complex will do whatever it can to make more money. Including tacking on BS technicalities on crimes that are no different.
Motive is always a factor in trial and punishment. Do you think someone who accidentally kills someone in a bar fight should be punished the same as someone who plots out a murder for months, and then carries through with his plan? Same result, two different crimes, two different punishments- the main difference being motive. You say want the courts to be objective... How can a jury/judge be objective, if key pieces of information about the crime are left out? How is it objective, if you withhold the motive from the jury?
No it isn't. You are free to think whatever you want. But if you commit a crime, your thoughts become part of your overall motive, and motive is always a factor in any trial. Jealousy, rage, anger, revenge, desperation, negligence, premeditation - these are all motives that are presented at a trial to create an overall picture of what happened. Why shouldn't racism and/or hate be considered? Different motives determine the punishment - if the facts of your trial show that you are generally not a dangerous person, but committed a crime in an act of desperation, juries are more likely to believe that you are not generally a danger to society, and give you a light sentence. Our system of civil law, through experience and data, has determined that those people who commit hate crimes are less likely to feel remorse for their crime, and are more likely to continue committing more crimes, thus deserving of harsher penalties. If you were convicted of a crime, wouldn't you want of the evidence to be presented?
Aaaaaaaand, this is why I'm happy we have legal system where people get fair trials, and individual crimes are treated as such - individual.
Based off this statement im guessing you have never been facing criminal charges. You rarely get a fair trial unless you have the $$$ to pay for one. You are guilty until proven innocent in the USA, unless you are rich. Now I agree motive is a big factor in a crime, I don't agree with added time for "hate crimes". We are semi free in America, that means the freedom to be a bigot if you want(as long as not infringing on the rights of someone else). Now if you commit a crime out of hate that should be the same of a crime in a rage or some shit, not added 10 years because of your personal beliefs. I wouldn't be so against hate crimes if I hadn't pernoally had friends that got charged with one because he was Latino and beat up a black guy. He wasn't racist at all but at some point in the fight he called the black guy a N***er. Just because of that he got the book thrown at him. 10 year sentence for a fist fight. He served 6 and is now out. He is now very racist, thanks justice system.
It's to discourage violent racism which is fine by me. The worst atrocities in human history have been motivated by racism.
What about greed and religion? Surely those scapegoats need some attention also. How about a mandatory 10 years for committing any crime while also being religious? And if you commit a crime while being religious and greedy, that's an addition 20 years.
Well religious crimes are treated worse than hate crimes. We call it terrorism and the perpetrators have no rights at all. As far as greed motivated crimes being treated more serious, I'm all for it. But it will never happen, since the law makers are usually greedy themselves.
So then I assume you agree with weed being illegal. Since you are ok with legislating personal morality.
Racist violence hurts people. Unchecked, racism can lead to genocide, terrorism, and slavery. Cannabis is a harmless yet extremely useful plant. Laws should be based on the golden rule, not superstition.
That racism leads to those things is pure opinion. There are many, many forces acting on man when actions take place. To blame it all on racism, or to assign any proportion of it to racism, is personal opinion and can't be quantified or measured objectively. Weed being bad is also an opinion. If your opinion can be made into law, all opinions can be.
No I don't think killing your spouse in the heat of an argument should be treated differently than if you draw blueprints, and plan it out for a couple of months. Motives are used by the prosecution to make a case that the person is guilty. Your bar fight example would likely be an example of manslaughter. It's different than determining a punishment by why the two people didn't get along. Someone hates your shoes, someone hates your color, whatever.