あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]hfwang18 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

True, but I have to question the point of labeling a mass murder a hate crime, even if it were motivated by hatred of a particular group. It just gives off the impression that our government, through making a certain crime special by giving it a "hate crime" designation, affirmative action, etc. perpetuates the same racial constructs that led to slavery and segregation in the first place.

[–]Rufus_T_Firefly_ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I agree that while it does address the idea of racial constructs it doesn't do it in a negative way. The fact that racially motivated crimes exist is evidence that it needs to be address. Ignoring it will not help it.

[–]hfwang18 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Why should crimes rooted in hatred of a particular group be treated any differently from an equivalent crime?

[–]Rufus_T_Firefly_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As I said, ignoring the problem won't help it. The fact that racial biases in the past have resulted in some of the worst crimes in American history is reason enough to take extra steps to prevent hate crimes. These crimes aren't just about the single act of violence, but also the larger impact that they have on the community around them. A random act of violence is not the same as when a specific group is being targeted as the violence is perpetuated rather than an isolated incident. Obviously this is a simplification of a very complicated issue, but that is a large part of it.

[–]TheDefinitionOfSmug [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Making the distinction doesn't have to mean prosecuting it differently (or, that is, it's no different than any other prosecutorial angle used to win over a jury); there's a difference between how we prosecute crime and how we prevent it. Prevention measures require us to understand why a given crime happened, therefore the distinction is relevant.

It's everyone's own responsibility to see the line between prosecution and prevention, whether you're a jury, a judge, or just sitting here talking about it. There are people on both sides failing to see that line; whether someone says: "This is worse because it's a hate crime so the punishment should be greater and the trial doesn't need to be thorough!" OR says: "Well, a murder is a murder, it's no use discussing the motive..." Well, they're both wrong. It's principally off-base.

Above all else, we have to be an intelligent enough society to be able to discuss these issues in detail, but also maintain the ability to pass judgment blindly, and be able to factor in everything: gun control, mental health, race, and the individual nuances of the case. When I encounter someone who willfully ignores any element of it, or blames one particular element as obvious, I tend to see that person as an ideologue who is shaping the narrative to their own.