Hate Crime usually pertains to a crime based on racism, especially in this day and age.
For example, you wouldn't call a bar fight between some men a Hate Crime because it was mos likely two hot heads getting up in each others faces, not because anyone went into the bar looking to fight.
But why, exactly? The term "hate crime" is used to define a crime that has been done out of hate for a specific type of person, so I don't see why the term should be eliminated
Because it adds an extra charge that is not necessary. The gov should not be policing what we feel. In America we should be free to hate people if we so desire.
But why, exactly? The term "hate crime" is used to define a crime that has been done out of hate for a specific type of person, so I don't see why the term should be eliminated
Because it adds an extra charge that is not necessary. The gov should not be policing what we feel. In America we should be free to hate people if we so desire.
If we remove the "why" factor, we can't punish or rehabilitate a person correctly. Plus, if hate crimes are "not necessary", then it doesn't matter why someone committed a crime and all criminals should be treated the same.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just don't think someone should be punished for hating someone.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just don't think someone should be punished for hating someone.
Hating someone and acting upon that hatred with murder, terrorism, assault, etc. are different.
Well, I think we should keep it as an extra charge because sure, you can hate someone all you want, but acting on that in a way that could potentially harm hundreds? Yeah, that's fucked up, and they deserve an extra charge for it
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just don't think someone should be punished for hating someone.
Hating someone and acting upon that hatred with murder, terrorism, assault, etc. are different.
Exactly.
Well, I think we should keep it as an extra charge because sure, you can hate someone all you want, but acting on that in a way that could potentially harm hundreds? Yeah, that's fucked up, and they deserve an extra charge for it
No they don't. They should be charged for there crime. Not how they feel.
But they're not just being charged for their hateful feelings. That's preposterous. They're being charged for acting on those hateful feelings.
Yeah, they're being charged for committing a crime against someone because of prejudice, not for 'hating someone'.
People aren't charged for the Hate Crime itself, just the actual crime committed. The media calls it a Hate Crime because of the intent behind it.
Intent is incredibly important in the legal system, which is why it’s taken into account and people have heavier charges for hate crimes. Intent in the difference between first, second, and third degree murder
I love this topic. And stuff about the criminal justice system in general
Exactly what Moxie said. If we don't take intent into account, then manslaughter should be considered just as bad as premeditated serial killing.
Also 'manslaughter' sounds so brutal and it's the least bad murder charge
I've always had an issue with that too. And how serial sounds like cereal…. weird
Here's my unpopular opinion/debate topic: Dumbledore is not a good person and doesn't deserve the reputation that he has. Anyone disagree?
Nope. I agree wholeheartedly.
You forget all the good he was because of the reveal of the bad he did.
Dumbledore was never my favorite character, but unlike some people Snape his backstory excuses some of what he did, but he still should have told Harry about everything sooner. I mean, the only reason he didn't was for dramatic effect and a more exciting climax.
Also he has horrible taste in men.
Breaking News: J.K. Rowling reveals that you, the reader, were gay all along.
She's right, I am
Oh no, how could I hath not knoweth before
Fangirl squeal
BREAKING NEWS: It has been confirmed that I, indeed, am a lamppost
Nah.
I call fake news.
Spoiler - click to show.
Did….did you even read the actual interview, or did you just want to drag J.K. Rowling? That's not what she said about Grindelwald and Dumbledore, she actually said the relationship was intense, and when asked about the sexual side of it, she didn't confirm or deny it.
Kind of dragging. Don't get me wrong, Rowling is awesome. But the thing with Dumbledore is such a meme.
I guess I never got pissed about the Dumbledore thing because he's a teacher and generally teachers don't discuss their relationships with their students, especially since HP takes place in the late 80s/early 90s, so being an openly gay wizard teacher most likely wasn't very safe.
Also if I had fallen for the OG dark lord, I wouldn't want my student to know.