When someone is convicted of a crime, in this case assault, they are punished according to the law. But should those who attack someone else out of hate for their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. receive stiffer punishment?
That is what the law in Washington provides for. Some argue that hate speech (and hateful motives in crimes) should not be a factor in sentencing and the law because of the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. Others believe the laws are reasonable and necessary to protect groups that are the targets of such attacks.
Check this short story out from the (online!) Seattle P-I and let me know what you think.
Hate crime charges filed in anti-gay attack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that “hate crimes” should not receive a stiffer punishment, because a person that would say that homosexuality violates his religion is probably just trying say that his religion is different. After all, most people in this world have different kinds of religion. But approaching a man and hurting him and robbing him just because he was yelling anti-gay slurs is wrong. The 1st amendment gives us the freedom of speech, and this man is just probably expressing himself or other people that is not “considered” as a man is still a man. Anyway Idris should still be punished because he violated someone’s rights. But this doesn’t give the government the excused they need just to give someone a stiffer punishment.
Current Event 4
Post a Comment