Hate crimes legislations serve no real purpose.

CFP: Another reason to abolish hate crimes by Arthur Weinreb , 10/02/07

The introduction of hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with punishment or deterrence of crime. It serves only to give those in the race business another excuse to get more taxpayer money to pursue their politically correct causes and their political ideology. Perhaps the greatest example of this was the killing of James Byrd Jr. in Texas in 1998. Byrd, who was black, was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, driven by white racists. The refusal of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to enact hate crime legislation was used during the 2000 presidential race to show he was unfit to hold office. Bush was simultaneously attacked for being the governor of a state that uses the death penalty too much. It didn’t seem to matter to critics of how the state handles crime that two of Byrd’s killers were sentenced to death; that wasn’t enough.

The hate crimes aspect was used by the race industry to tell us how evil and racist, not the perpetrators of these crimes, but all of society is. Zanana Akande, the former president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and living proof why Howard Hampton will never become premier of Ontario, was quick to point out that “nipper” is not far from “nigger”. What nonsense! Notice how quickly a black activist brought blacks into the situation, even though these acts were aimed at Asians.

Other than keeping the race industry going, hate crimes serve no real purpose. Judges have discretion in sentencing; that’s the number one reason why violent criminals are back on the street soon after being incarcerated. Unless the sentence is mandatory such as that for first degree murder, judges have the discretion to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a crime and can adjust their sentences to reflect crimes that are solely racially or ethnically based.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content